dofp2024_00103 — Extension of deputation in the Indian Forest Service shall be strictly on the basis of norms prescribed and attendant conditions attached. The decision of the Administrative Ministry is final

Extension of deputation in the Indian Forest Service shall be strictly on the basis of norms prescribed and attendant conditions attached. The decision of the Administrative Ministry is final — The chunk is discussing the case of an IFS officer whose tenure was up to June 26, 2023, but due to a status quo order, he was not relieved. The Respondents argue that any request for extension of In... — Facts: The Applicant is a direct recruit Indian Forest Service (IFS) Officer of the 2009 batch of the Manipur Cadre. He is currently working in the Forest Department of the Government of Kerala on deputation from Manipur. Inter-Cadre Deputation from Manipur Cadre to Kerala Cadre on personal grounds (parents' ailments and higher education of spouse) for a period of three years had been approved in his case. He had accordingly joined duty in the Kerala Cadre on 26-6-2020. The three year deputation period of the Applicant to Kerala Cadre has thus come to an end on 25-6-2023. The Applicant made an application to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force of Kerala on 12-12-2022, for extension of the period of Inter-Cadre Deputation in view of certain personal grounds which under Paragraph 3

(d) of the OM, dated 15-11-2022 was permissible for 2 more years. The State Government of Kerala communicated its "no objection” to the Ministry of Environment and Forest which in turn took up the matter with the parent cadre of the Applicant, the Government of Manipur, for conveying their "no objection” to the proposed extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation to Kerala on personal grounds in order that the Government of India may process the matter further. The Government of Manipur sent its no objection to the extension of the proposed Inter-Cadre Deputation of the Applicant for another two years, in terms of the Government of India, DoP&T OM, dated 15-11-2022. The MoEF&CC proceeded to reject the request for extension on the ground that as per DoP&T instructions, a request for extension would be entertained only if it was forwarded by the State Government concerned with 'cogent reasons' and at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. In the instant case, the consent of the State Government was received without any cogent reasons with less than three months' time left for his deputation. As per the Applicant, who belongs to the North-East State "Male Officers borne on a North-East Cadre may be allowed to go on Inter-Cadre Deputation to other cadres including his Home State after completion of 9 (Nine) years of actual service in the North-East and not being in SAG scale (to be seen only at the time of being sent on deputation) for a maximum period of 5 (Five) years in his entire career." According to the Applicant, the stipulation of spelling out cogent reason and application within three months of the expiry of tenure etc., are all arbitrary. The Applicant expressed that the compelling domestic circumstances for the Applicant to remain in the same station still persist. Rule 6 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 allows such deputation from the State Government to another State Government or even to a Company, Association or Body of individuals, etc. There is no prescription in these Rules for any cogent reasons to be provided for such deputation. Since in the present case both the State Governments have given their consent for extending the Inter-Cadre Deputation of the Applicant for a further period of two years from 14-2-2022, his case should have been thus considered positively by the 2nd Respondent, MoEF&CC. It is pointed out that many other individuals had sought and got extension up to five years and the Applicant has been singled out. It has also been submitted that the justifiable reason for retention at Kerala though best known to the State Government, the same had not been communicated to the Centre, the omission of which cannot be attributed to the Applicant. The matter first came up before this Tribunal on 1-6-2023, when it was heard by this Bench. Status Quo in respect of the Applicant was ordered to be maintained till the next date of hearing. In its interim order, this Tribunal also noted that a perusal of the impugned Order, dated 24-5-2023 produced at Annexure-A-7 had revealed that the MoEF&CC had turned down the Inter-Cadre Deputation of the Applicant on the ground that the consent of the State Government has been received without any cogent reasons and also since less than three months were left for his deputation when the proposal was sent. The Tribunal, however, noted that both the letters of Government of Kerala and the Government of Manipur were dated more than three months before the expiry of deputation. Further, regarding the contention that no cogent reasons had been given in the Letter at Annexure A-3, it was noted that letters in all such cases are sent by the Government of Kerala in the same format. The Applicant had indicated that all the grounds on which he had availed his deputation to Kerala still persist. Further, he had also stated in his Annexure A-2 representation that his spouse was doing her Ph.D and required another three years to complete the course and that he had two minor children. In light of these reasons, as well as the fact that Inter-Cadre Deputation to other cadres can be allowed for male officers borne in the North-East cadres for a maximum period of five years and also because of the fact that the letters from the concerned State Governments appeared to have been sent on time, it was ordered that Status Quo in respect of the Applicant was required to be maintained till the next date of hearing. This interim Order, dated 1-6-2023 has been extended up to the present. Respondents have contested the OA. They have drawn particular attention to the concerned Paragraphs of Letter, dated 15-11-2022 at 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3

(g) and 3(i). The crux of those paragraphs is that the State Government has to provide cogent reasons at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. The MoEF&CC, which is the Cadre Controlling Authority of the Applicant did not accede to the request on the basis of Paragraph 3

(g) of the DoP&T Guidelines above as the Government of Kerala sent the 'no objection' in the case of the Applicant without mentioning any functional requirements for his services or having any cogent reasons, as stipulated in Paragraph 3(g). The guidelines also stipulated in Paragraph 3

(g) that if no specific approval of the Central Government for extension was received within the period for which deputation was originally valid, the officer shall have to be relieved positively and immediately on completion of the original tenure. In this case, the tenure of deputation of the Applicant was up to 26-6-2023. As such, he should have been relieved as on that date as per the prevalent guidelines. However, since this Tribunal, vide its interim Order, dated 1-6-2023, had ordered Status Quo in respect of the Applicant to be maintained, he was not relieved. For the smooth functioning of the IFS Cadre policy guidelines framed by the DoP&T are followed. The Appointments Committee of Cabinet is the competent authority to take all decisions regarding Inter-Cadre Deputation or approval for extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation. Further, the Respondents have submitted that an officer of the All India Service is expected to serve anywhere in India. The matter had been examined in terms of the policy framed by DoP&T. The impugned Order, dated 24-5-2023 was also issued in terms of this policy. Later on, the Respondents filed M.A. No. 180/297/2024 on 1-4-2024 seeking to vacate the Status Quo order passed by this Tribunal on 1-6-2023. The M.A. was heard on 4-4-2024. After hearing both counsel, it was decided to reserve the matter for orders in the OA itself as all issues were brought forth. In the M.A. for vacation of the Status Quo order, it was submitted by the Respondents in the O.A that the guidelines clearly provide that any request for extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation for a further period of two years can only be approved only after review. The 2nd Respondent, MoEF&CC, was the competent authority to take a final call on approving such extensions, based on sufficient and convincing reasons put forward by the officer seeking extension. It was submitted that the mere fact of obtaining NOCs from the respective State Governments will not suo motu vest a legal right on the officer for claiming extension. It was submitted that the communication does not contain the requisite cogent reasons for extending the services of the Applicant in Kerala, based on which the NOC was granted. The DoP&T guidelines clearly provide that such cogent reasons have to be stated. In fact, it is also provided that if specific approval of the Central Government for extension was not received within the period for which deputation was originally valid, the officer has to be relieved positively and immediately on completion of the original tenure. Extension is neither automatic nor should it be presumed merely on the ground that the State Government concerned or officer both had made a request to Central Government for extension. Thus, these guidelines provide that the decision to extend the deputation of officers on their application solely lies on the discretion of the Central Government. The mere grant of an NOC by the State Governments does not render any automatic extension of the tenure of deputation. It is submitted that, even going by the Annexure A-2 request for extension, the Applicant has not stated any cogent reason for extension. Academic or educational requirements of a spouse is not a matter of exigency. Further, the Applicant has not mentioned any urgent medical reasons with respect to his father other than age related ailments. Other than in situations of dire or extreme hardships, the administration cannot be expected to settle personal grievances of the employees. In fact, in the case of the Applicant, a specific order of rejection was issued before the expiry of the tenure of the Applicant. Thus, this letter has been issued strictly in consonance with the professed guidelines and is in full satisfaction of administrative requirements. The Applicant seems to have been falsely led to believe that there was an inherent legal right for him to be granted extension. On the contrary, the Applicant has only an inherent right to request for extension, which will be finally reviewed and decided based on the reasons furnished by him as well as on the basis of the reasons stated by the State Government for considering granting the extension of his deputation service. There is no blanket applicability of any rules or provisions entitling them for grant of such requests ipso facto. Hence, it is prayed in the M.A that the Tribunal vacate the interim Order, dated 1-6-2023 granted to the Applicant in the O.A., as the Respondents will be put to irreparable hardship and administrative difficulty if it is not done so.