Relieving Order Premised on Cancellation of Attachment Is Unsustainable if Employee Is Substantively Posted.

The petitioner, a Radiographer substantively posted at the Community Health Centre (CHC) Udaypur, challenged a relieving order dated 13.04.2026.

This order was issued following a general directive dated 16.03.2026 intended to cancel the "attachment" or "deputation" of employees.

Previously, the petitioner had challenged a transfer to Mainpat in WPS No. 5647/2019, where the High Court directed the Collector to decide on his posting.

Pursuant to that direction, the Collector allowed the petitioner to continue at Udaypur.

The State argued that this continued stay at Udaypur constituted an "attachment," justifying the impugned relieving order under the policy to cancel temporary attachments.

1. Whether the petitioner’s continued service at CHC Udaypur, following a court-ordered administrative decision, qualifies as an "attachment/deputation" or remains a substantive posting.

2. Whether the relieving order dated 13.04.2026, premised on the cancellation of attachments, is legally sustainable in the case of the petitioner.

The Court applied the principle of administrative law regarding the distinction between "substantive posting" and "attachment/deputation".

The Court relied on the doctrine that administrative actions—specifically relieving orders based on a general policy—must be grounded in factual accuracy; if an employee is not serving on an attachment basis, general orders regarding "attached employees" cannot be arbitrarily applied to them.

The court also emphasized the finality of administrative decisions taken pursuant to judicial directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court scrutinized the nature of the petitioner’s incumbency at CHC Udaypur. It noted that the petitioner was substantively appointed and posted at Udaypur from the date of his appointment.

While the State contended that the Collector’s decision (following WPS No. 5647/2019) to let the petitioner remain at Udaypur transformed the posting into an "attachment," the Court found no evidence or specific order of attachment to support this claim.

The Court observed that the State failed to produce any document proving the petitioner was on deputation/attachment. Consequently, since the order dated 16.03.2026 targeted only "attached" employees, applying it to a substantively posted employee like the petitioner was deemed a factual error and an arbitrary exercise of power.

The Court answered the issues in favor of the petitioner, ruling that the impugned order dated 13.04.2026 was not sustainable in law. The writ petition was allowed, and the relieving order was effectively set aside.