Rajasthan High Court Quashes Unauthorized Repatriation Order by Udaipur Development Authority
Court Rules Transfer under Section 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, is Not Deputation; Emphasizes State Government's Exclusive Authority
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order by the Udaipur Development Authority (UDA) that repatriated an employee back to his parent department without the requisite legal authority. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Sandeep Taneja, emphasized that the transfer of employees under Section 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, does not constitute deputation and thus does not require the consent of the employee or the lending and borrowing employers.
The case arose when Ravindra Gurjar, an Assistant Accounts Officer-II, was transferred from the Municipal Council Makrana to the UDA by an order dated September 20, 2023. However, the UDA Commissioner later issued an order on March 19, 2025, relieving Gurjar of his duties and repatriating him to his parent department. Gurjar challenged this decision, which was initially upheld by a Single Judge of the High Court, who mistakenly categorized the transfer as deputation.
In their detailed judgment, the Division Bench clarified that Section 336(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, grants exclusive power to the State Government to transfer municipal employees to other local bodies or authorities. The Court highlighted that unlike deputation, which requires a tripartite agreement involving the consent of the employee, Section 336(2) does not involve such consent, thus differentiating it from deputation.
The Court further pointed out that the UDA lacked the authority to unilaterally repatriate Gurjar, as the power to transfer and repatriate rests solely with the State Government. The ruling underscores the legal principle that the State Government's order under Section 336 is binding, and any deviation by local authorities without the State's approval is unauthorized.
The judgment also referred to precedents from the Supreme Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, reinforcing the principle that deputation is a consensual process, whereas the statutory transfer under Section 336 is not.
Concluding its decision, the Court quashed both the UDA's repatriation order and the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition, directing the Commissioner of UDA to refer the transfer issue to the State Government. The State Government has been instructed to resolve the matter within 30 days.
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the boundaries of administrative authority and reinforces the necessity for adherence to statutory provisions by local bodies.
Bottom Line:
Service Jurisprudence - Transfer under Section 336 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 is not a deputation as it does not involve the consent of the employee, lending employer, or borrowing employer.
Statutory provision(s): Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, Section 336
Ravindra Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2789678
