HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14339 of 2026 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 512 of 2019, whereby the OA, filed by the petitioner, seeking quashing of the order dated 03.04.2019 putting an end to his deputation and seeking direction to the respondents to regularize/absorb the petitioner's lien in the Diesel Locomotive Works (DLW), Varanasi from the due date on the post of Permanent Way Mistri (PWM), i.e., 09.01.1997, has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner, who was working as PWM Grade - I at East Central Railway, Mughalsarai Division, moved application requesting transfer from Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai to DLW, Varanasi. The request was accepted on 22.01.1997 and he was sent on deputation for three years, however, his tenure on deputation, was extended from time to time till 03.04.2019, thereafter his deputation was put to an end. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the OA was filed with the submissions that the petitioner was working at DLW, Varanasi for over 23 years against the regular vacancy of PWM and his repatriation after 23 years was not justified. 4. The respondents contested the plea raised in this regard and indicated that the petitioner had been on deputation at DLW, Varanasi ever since 1997. The aspect of deputation was clearly mentioned at the time of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Maurya, Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shashi Prakash Singh (A.S.G.I.) with Purnendu Kumar Singh Rakesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Union of India and 4 others .....Respondent(s) joining on 22.01.1997 and all his promotions, etc. during the entire tenure had taken place at East Central Railway, wherein he was granted the post of SSE/P.Way under the restructuring by order dated 07.07.2015. The petitioner got the post of Junior Engineer (J.E.) in his parent cadre due to merger/upgradation of the post of Senior Path Way Supervisor into J.E. Based on the said submissions, it was prayed that the OA be dismissed. 5. Submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner that due to long tenure of the petitioner at DLW, Varanasi, which was contrary to the Master Circular providing for a maximum period of 5 years on deputation, as the petitioner has continued on deputation for over 23 years, the same would be deemed to be a regular transfer from East Central Railway to DLW, Varanasi and the action of the respondents in putting purported end to his deputation was not justified. 6. The respondents reiterated the plea, as noticed hereinbefore. 7. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and referring to the judgment in Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others : Writ - A No. 11824 of 2025, decided on 14.10.2025 of this Court, came to the conclusion that the petitioner continued on deputation as he had earned all his promotions at the parent cadre, the respondents were well within their right to put an end to the deputation and consequently, dismissed the OA. 8. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions regarding continued stay at DLW, Varanasi and contended that the same was on transfer and was wrongly indicated as deputation. Further submissions were made that as the petitioner is nearing superannuation, the action of the respondents, in this regard, is not justified and therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside. 9. Counsel for the respondents supported the orders impunged. 10. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 11. A bare look at the order permitting joining of the petitioner on DLW, Varanasi, scanned copy of which forms part of the order passed by the WRIA No. 14339 of 2026 2 Tribunal, reveals that clear indication of appointment on deputation for a period of 3 years was indicated and it was further stipulated that for the purpose of his promotion, the same would be maintained in parent Railway and that as the transfer on deputation is based on his own request, he would not be entitled to deputation allowance. 12. Whereafter, apparently the period of deputation was extended from time to time at the request of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner continued to be governed in so far as his seniority, etc. is concerned at his parent cadre, i.e., East Central Railway, Mughalsarai, which fortifies the fact that for all these years, the parent cadre of the petitioner continued to remain at Mughalsarai and the claim made regarding his joining at DLW, Varanasi on transfer is baseless and factually incorrect. 13. Once the petitioner was sent on deputation to DLW, Varanasi, only on account of the fact that his deputation continued for unusually long period of 23 years, does not under any circumstance change the status from deputation to transfer. Once it is established that the petitioner is on deputation at DLW, Varanasi, it is well within the right of the borrowing authority to put an end to the deputation and mere long period of deputation and the fact that the petitioner is nearing retirement, by itself, cannot be a reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondents as upheld by the Tribunal. 14. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. September 17, 2026 RK WRIA No. 14339 of 2026 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad