dofp2024_00104 — Repatriation of a deputationist before the expiry of her extended period of deputation cannot be resorted to in a vindictive manner. Deputationists cannot continue indefinitely or claim absorption in the absence of rules / regulations; exceeding five-year deputation is impermissible without proper approval

DoFP

Repatriation of a deputationist before the expiry of her extended period of deputation cannot be resorted to in a vindictive manner. Deputationists cannot continue indefinitely or claim absorption in the absence of rules / regulations; exceeding five-year deputation is impermissible without proper approval — This chunk is a part of an OA (Original Application) No. 4148 of 2024, M.A. Nos. 2863 and 1405 of 2025 regarding the repatriation of an Auditor who was promoted to Assistant Audit Officer (AAO) and w... — Facts: The Applicant joined as an Auditor at the office of Principal Accountant-General (Audit-1), M.P. (Gwalior) and cleared her SAS Examination in August 2019. She was promoted as Assistant Audit Officer (AAO) on ad hoc basis on 8-9-2020 and subsequently went on deputation to Delhi on 30-3-2021. Her deputation, initially valid till 25-3-2022, was extended yearly, with the last extension granted until 25-3-2025. The Applicant availed maternity leave from 14-8-2023, followed by half-pay leave from 14-2-2024 to 25-4-2024, and then applied for Child Care Leave (CCL). While her CCL was initially sanctioned from 30-4-2024 to 30-10-2024, she sought an extension of CCL for eight months by a representation, dated 24-9-2024 which was denied by the Respondents by impugned order, dated 16-10-2024. By order dated 16-10-2024, not only the CCL was rejected, but also she was relieved and directed to join the parent office at Gwalior by curtailing her deputation period. Aggrieved, the Applicant filed the present OA seeking to quash the impugned orders and to direct her absorption in the office of DG (I&A) at Delhi and grant benefits as per the CAG Circular, dated 29-12-2023. While issuing notice, the impugned order, dated 16-10-2024 was stayed. On 2-7-2025, the learned Counsel for the Applicant had made a statement that she would not want to continue on the Child Care Leave. In light of the statement made by her, she was allowed to join her duties with the Respondents. Since the Applicant has already joined her duties, the prayer 8
(i) has been rendered infructuous. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that being on deputation in Delhi since 2021, the Applicant was seeking absorption in her current office, relying on the order, dated 29-12-2023 and the Recruitment Rules of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. The order, dated 29-12-2023 issued as a one-time measure, extended absorption benefits only to employees awaiting promotion. The Applicant contends that restricting the benefit to such employees constitutes discrimination, as her right to absorption cannot be denied merely because she has already been promoted. The learned counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on Columns 10 and 11 of the Recruitment Rules, which specify that officers under the Cadre Controlling Authority are eligible for absorption or deputation. The Applicant further submitted that she meets these criteria, holding an analogous post of Assistant Audit Officer (Level-8) and also passed the Subordinate Audit Service Examination. The rules also clarify that while deputationists are not eligible for promotion, they remain eligible for absorption. Although deputation is ordinarily limited to three years, her deputation has been lawfully extended until 2026. Consequently, the Applicant contends that she fulfils all conditions for absorption and that denial of the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory. The Counsel for the Respondents raised preliminary objections on maintainability of OA. The OA seeks multiple reliefs - maternity leave and absorption - which are distinct and unrelated. Hence, the OA is not maintainable. Moreover, the Applicant relies on an order, dated 25-2-2025 which is not part of the pleadings. Further, her transfer orders, dated 17-3-2025 and 3-3-2025 were withdrawn by the Respondents, following a statement during a pending Contempt Petition, allowing the Applicant to remain at her current posting. Moreover, the deputation order, dated 26-3-2021 was on spouse grounds and not in public interest, and did not mention the possibility of permanent absorption. The Counsel for the Respondents also relied upon the following Judicial Precedents and Rules:- CAG and others v. Niraj Kumar Singh (W.P.C.T. 63 of 2025 - Calcutta HC): Deputationists cannot claim a vested right to permanent absorption if the original circular does not mention it; recruitment rules provide discretion, not entitlement. DoP&T, OMs 8-9-2022, 1-3-2011, 16-5-2013: Deputationists must be relieved upon expiry; overstaying can have disciplinary consequences. Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [ (1993) 4 SCC 357 ] and Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta [ (1992) 1 SCC 306 ] emphasize that transfer orders are incidence of service and that spouse posting guidelines are not enforceable rights. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey [ (2004) 12 SCC 299 ]: Courts do not interfere with transfers unless mala fide or arbitrary. W.P. (C) 10707/2018 (Delhi HC) decided on 19-10-2023: Deputationists cannot continue indefinitely or claim absorp-tion in the absence of rules / regulations; exceeding five-year deputation is impermissible without proper approval. Moreover, since the deputation was on spouse ground, the Applicant cannot claim continued posting based on spouse grounds alone. She has all-India liability and must comply with transfer requirements. The learned Counsel for the Respondent further contended that the OA is maintainable only if grounded on statutory rules, regulations, or orders. In the absence of such provisions, absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the Applicant's continued deputation is subject to administrative discretion and rules.

DoFP

Repatriation of a deputationist before the expiry of her extended period of deputation cannot be resorted to in a vindictive manner. Deputationists cannot continue indefinitely or claim absorption in the absence of rules / regulations; exceeding five-year deputation is impermissible without proper approval — This chunk is a part of an OA (Original Application) No. 4148 of 2024, M.A. Nos. 2863 and 1405 of 2025 regarding the repatriation of an Auditor who was promoted to Assistant Audit Officer (AAO) and w... — Facts: The Applicant joined as an Auditor at the office of Principal Accountant-General (Audit-1), M.P. (Gwalior) and cleared her SAS Examination in August 2019. She was promoted as Assistant Audit Officer (AAO) on ad hoc basis on 8-9-2020 and subsequently went on deputation to Delhi on 30-3-2021. Her deputation, initially valid till 25-3-2022, was extended yearly, with the last extension granted until 25-3-2025. The Applicant availed maternity leave from 14-8-2023, followed by half-pay leave from 14-2-2024 to 25-4-2024, and then applied for Child Care Leave (CCL). While her CCL was initially sanctioned from 30-4-2024 to 30-10-2024, she sought an extension of CCL for eight months by a representation, dated 24-9-2024 which was denied by the Respondents by impugned order, dated 16-10-2024. By order dated 16-10-2024, not only the CCL was rejected, but also she was relieved and directed to join the parent office at Gwalior by curtailing her deputation period. Aggrieved, the Applicant filed the present OA seeking to quash the impugned orders and to direct her absorption in the office of DG (I&A) at Delhi and grant benefits as per the CAG Circular, dated 29-12-2023. While issuing notice, the impugned order, dated 16-10-2024 was stayed. On 2-7-2025, the learned Counsel for the Applicant had made a statement that she would not want to continue on the Child Care Leave. In light of the statement made by her, she was allowed to join her duties with the Respondents. Since the Applicant has already joined her duties, the prayer 8
(i) has been rendered infructuous. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that being on deputation in Delhi since 2021, the Applicant was seeking absorption in her current office, relying on the order, dated 29-12-2023 and the Recruitment Rules of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. The order, dated 29-12-2023 issued as a one-time measure, extended absorption benefits only to employees awaiting promotion. The Applicant contends that restricting the benefit to such employees constitutes discrimination, as her right to absorption cannot be denied merely because she has already been promoted. The learned counsel for the Applicant placed reliance on Columns 10 and 11 of the Recruitment Rules, which specify that officers under the Cadre Controlling Authority are eligible for absorption or deputation. The Applicant further submitted that she meets these criteria, holding an analogous post of Assistant Audit Officer (Level-8) and also passed the Subordinate Audit Service Examination. The rules also clarify that while deputationists are not eligible for promotion, they remain eligible for absorption. Although deputation is ordinarily limited to three years, her deputation has been lawfully extended until 2026. Consequently, the Applicant contends that she fulfils all conditions for absorption and that denial of the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory. The Counsel for the Respondents raised preliminary objections on maintainability of OA. The OA seeks multiple reliefs - maternity leave and absorption - which are distinct and unrelated. Hence, the OA is not maintainable. Moreover, the Applicant relies on an order, dated 25-2-2025 which is not part of the pleadings. Further, her transfer orders, dated 17-3-2025 and 3-3-2025 were withdrawn by the Respondents, following a statement during a pending Contempt Petition, allowing the Applicant to remain at her current posting. Moreover, the deputation order, dated 26-3-2021 was on spouse grounds and not in public interest, and did not mention the possibility of permanent absorption. The Counsel for the Respondents also relied upon the following Judicial Precedents and Rules:- CAG and others v. Niraj Kumar Singh (W.P.C.T. 63 of 2025 - Calcutta HC): Deputationists cannot claim a vested right to permanent absorption if the original circular does not mention it; recruitment rules provide discretion, not entitlement. DoP&T, OMs 8-9-2022, 1-3-2011, 16-5-2013: Deputationists must be relieved upon expiry; overstaying can have disciplinary consequences. Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [ (1993) 4 SCC 357 ] and Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta [ (1992) 1 SCC 306 ] emphasize that transfer orders are incidence of service and that spouse posting guidelines are not enforceable rights. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey [ (2004) 12 SCC 299 ]: Courts do not interfere with transfers unless mala fide or arbitrary. W.P. (C) 10707/2018 (Delhi HC) decided on 19-10-2023: Deputationists cannot continue indefinitely or claim absorp-tion in the absence of rules / regulations; exceeding five-year deputation is impermissible without proper approval. Moreover, since the deputation was on spouse ground, the Applicant cannot claim continued posting based on spouse grounds alone. She has all-India liability and must comply with transfer requirements. The learned Counsel for the Respondent further contended that the OA is maintainable only if grounded on statutory rules, regulations, or orders. In the absence of such provisions, absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the Applicant's continued deputation is subject to administrative discretion and rules.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text