Court Orders Proper Notice and Salary Payment in Repatriation Case

The court partially allowed the petition, directing the respondent to follow the prescribed procedure of issuance of notice before repatriating the petitioner and to pay her salary within four weeks. The court emphasized the need for humane treatment and adherence to procedural requirements in repatriation cases, especially during maternity leave.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the repatriation order during maternity leave.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for repatriation.
3. Allegations of lethargy and negligence in duty.
4. Rights and protections of deputationists.
5. Applicability of guidelines for posting spouses at the same station.
6. Payment of salary during maternity leave.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Repatriation Order During Maternity Leave:
The petitioner challenged the repatriation order dated 15.11.2021, issued during her maternity leave, as inhumane and illegal. The court noted that the petitioner was on approved maternity leave from 27.09.2021 to 25.03.2022, and the repatriation occurred when her child was barely 10 days old. The court emphasized that repatriating an officer during maternity leave without serving notice constitutes a procedural irregularity. The court ruled that this approach lacked humane treatment and violated established principles.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Repatriation:
The court examined whether the procedural requirements, specifically the issuance of a three-month advance notice as per DoP&T instructions dated 17.06.2010, were followed. It was found that no such notice was given to the petitioner. The court highlighted that the repatriation order was issued without the mandatory three-month notice, which is required for premature relieving of deputationists. The court directed the respondent to follow the prescribed procedure of issuance of notice before repatriating the petitioner.

3. Allegations of Lethargy and Negligence in Duty:
The respondent alleged that the petitioner was lethargic in completing procedures and had neglected her duties, leading to her repatriation. The petitioner countered that she was facing health issues due to pregnancy and her husband's illness. The court noted that no memos were issued to the petitioner for her alleged lethargy, and the administrative warning issued on 14.10.2021 contradicted the reasons for her repatriation. The court found that the allegations were not substantiated with proper procedural actions.

4. Rights and Protections of Deputationists:
The court referred to several judgments, including the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. National Highway Authority of India, which established that deputationists have no vested right to continue on deputation but must be treated fairly and equitably. The court reiterated that repatriation must be based on justifiable reasons and, if based on misconduct, should be preceded by a show cause notice. The court found that the petitioner's repatriation lacked justifiable reasons and procedural fairness.

5. Applicability of Guidelines for Posting Spouses at the Same Station:
The court referred to the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009, which mandates the posting of spouses at the same station to ensure normal family life and welfare of children. The petitioner, whose husband was posted in Ahmedabad, was initially brought on deputation to Ahmedabad following these guidelines. The court emphasized that the guidelines should be followed, and any deviation must be communicated with specific reasons. The court found that the repatriation order did not consider these guidelines adequately.

6. Payment of Salary During Maternity Leave:
The petitioner claimed that she was not paid her leave salary during her maternity leave. The court found that the non-payment of salary was unjustified, especially since the petitioner was on approved maternity leave and not unauthorizedly absent. The court directed the respondent to pay the petitioner's salary without fail within four weeks of the receipt of the order.

Conclusion:
The court partially allowed the petition, directing the respondent to follow the prescribed procedure of issuance of notice before repatriating the petitioner and to pay her salary within four weeks. The court emphasized the need for humane treatment and adherence to procedural requirements in repatriation cases, especially during maternity leave.

---