Case at a Glance
A Tripura Civil Service officer worked as Chief Manager (HR) at ONGC’s Tripura Asset on deputation from March 2024 to February 2026, but ONGC refused to give him the pay of that post, saying deputationists draw salary from their parent department. The Tripura High Court held that since ONGC admitted he discharged the job of Chief Manager (HR), denying him the pay scale of a regular holder of that post would violate Articles 14 and 39(d). It directed ONGC to pay him the pay and admissible allowances of the post under its then pay structure for the deputation period within three months, after deducting amounts already paid.
The petitioner, a Tripura Civil Service (SSG) officer, joined ONGC’s Tripura Asset on deputation on 1 March 2024 as Chief Manager (HR) in its land acquisition section. On 5 March 2024 he applied for pay equivalent to ONGC’s E4 level, which the Court treated as an exercise of option under the DoPT Office Memorandum of 17 June 2010, and he followed up on 25 April 2024. On 14 August 2025 ONGC refused, stating that government officials on deputation continue to draw salary from their parent department and that only those permanently absorbed get ONGC scales and benefits.
ONGC relied on its own office order of 22 June 2009 and argued that DoPT guidelines do not automatically apply to central public sector enterprises; it also said the deputation allowance would be worked out once the Tripura Government replied to its letter of 18 June 2025. Meanwhile, the State ordered the petitioner’s repatriation on 17 February 2026 and he was relieved on 28 February 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a State officer who, on deputation, actually discharges the duties of a post in ONGC entitled to the pay of that post on the principle of equal pay for equal work?
An Admitted Job Cannot Be Paid Less
The Court noted that the petitioner “could not place any document” showing that the deputation post carried a higher entitlement, but found it admitted, including from his pay slip, that he performed the job of Chief Manager (HR), and that “the respondents have not disputed the said fact.” ONGC’s refusal “appears to be arbitrary” in light of the precedents. The Court held that since he was discharging that job, he could not be denied “the pay scale of regular Chief Manager (HR) who is serving under ONGC in the same post”, and that this would amount to a violation of Articles 14 and 39(d).
The petitioner had relied on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh and Shah Samir Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 08 SC CK 0174. The Court said those decisions “cannot be applied in toto” because they concerned temporary employees, but reasoned that the petitioner was sent on ONGC’s own requisition to discharge the Chief Manager (HR) job. It concluded that “the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would also be applied in the case of the present petitioner.”
What the Court Actually Held
- An officer who, on deputation at ONGC’s requisition, discharged the job of Chief Manager (HR) cannot be denied the pay scale of a regular holder of that post.
- Denial would violate Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution; the principle of equal pay for equal work applies.
- ONGC’s refusal was found to be arbitrary.
- The writ petition was allowed: ONGC must pay the pay and other admissible allowances of the post for 1 March 2024 to 28 February 2026 under its then pay structure within three months, deducting amounts already paid.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It strengthens the position of government officers sent on deputation to public sector undertakings.
- It shows that an admission that the employee actually did the job can decide an equal-pay claim.
- It signals that internal PSU policies cannot override constitutional equality in pay.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Deputationists
- Keep pay slips, office orders and records showing the post you actually held.
- Exercise any pay option available under DoPT memoranda in writing and early.
For Counsel
- Build the claim on admitted performance of duties, not just designation.
- Distinguish cases on temporary employees where the employee was requisitioned for a specific post.
Key Takeaways
- Equal pay for equal work applied to a deputationist.
- ONGC admitted he did the Chief Manager (HR) job.
- Arrears for the full deputation period within three months.
- Amounts already paid will be adjusted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an officer on deputation entitled to the pay of the post held in the borrowing organisation?
In this case, yes: because ONGC admitted the officer discharged the Chief Manager (HR) job, the Tripura High Court held he was entitled to that post’s pay scale.
Why did ONGC refuse to pay?
It said deputationists draw salary from their parent department and only permanently absorbed officers get ONGC scales and benefits.
Which constitutional provisions were applied?
Articles 14 and 39(d), embodying the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Conclusion
The ruling treats the actual work done, rather than the officer’s status as a deputationist, as the measure of fair pay.
Practical takeaway: Deputationists performing a regular post’s duties should document that work and claim the post’s pay, relying on equal pay for equal work.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com