AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J): -
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in Para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
(a)pass an order quashing and setting aside the impugned policy dated 27.01.2025; pass an order quashing and setting aside the letter dated 19th of May 2025 and the letter of repatriation dated 4th of April 2025 issued by respondent No. 3.
(b)pass any other order or orders that may deem fit in the circumstances of the case..”
The applicant joined the Indian Audit and Accounts Department on compassionate appointment on 27.12.2012. She was promoted as Accountant on 21.12.2016 and was thereafter promoted as Senior Accountant in the year 2025. She was placed on deputation with respondent No.2 pursuant to Office Order dated 16.07.2021 for an initial period of one year.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's deputation at New Delhi was sought and continued having regard, inter alia, to her family circumstances and the posting of her spouse. The husband of the applicant is stated to be serving as an Assistant Section Officer in the Central Secretariat Service and posted at the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the applicant has an infant child and continuation at New Delhi would enable the family to remain together.
Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to various instructions governing deputation and posting within the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. Reliance has, inter alia, been placed upon the letter dated 28.12.1981, the subsequent instructions dated 27.08.1997, the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009 relating to posting of husband and wife at the same station, the CAG instructions dated 11.02.2015 and the CAG letter dated 06.08.2021. It is submitted that spouse-related circumstances have consistently been recognised as a relevant consideration while considering requests for deputation/posting.
It is further submitted that the revised transfer/posting policy dated 09.08.2024 also directed adherence to the existing DoPT guidelines concerning posting of husband and wife at the same station.
The applicant submits that respondent No.3, vide communication dated 04.04.2025, sought cessation of her deputation and repatriation upon expiry of the existing tenure. The applicant thereafter submitted her representation dated 11.04.2025.
Respondent No.2, vide communication dated 08.05.2025, recommended extension of the applicant's deputation from 19.07.2025 to 18.07.2026. The borrowing office recorded that her performance had remained satisfactory and that her continued services were required for the smooth functioning of the office. The recommendation also took note of her family circumstances, including the posting of her husband at New Delhi and the fact that she has an infant child.
Despite the aforesaid recommendation, respondent No.3, vide communication dated 19.05.2025, declined extension of the applicant's deputation by referring to administrative exigencies.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the plea of shortage of manpower is not supported by the cadre position relied upon by the respondents. It is submitted that, as on 01.03.2024, the sanctioned strength of Senior Accountants was 105 against a men-in-position of 125, apart from officials on deputation.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that deputation was sanctioned only for a specified period and the applicant has no vested or indefeasible right to continue at the borrowing office beyond the period sanctioned by the competent authority. It is further submitted that extension requires the consent/approval of the lending as well as the borrowing authority.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, under the Revised Deputation Policy dated 27.01.2025, deputation remains valid only for the approved period and extension is neither automatic nor presumed. It is further submitted that the competent authority had taken a decision to repatriate officials on deputation upon completion of their approved tenure, keeping in view the administrative requirements of the parent department.
It is also submitted that the decision was not founded upon any adverse assessment of the applicant's performance but upon administrative exigencies and manpower requirements of the parent department. The respondents have relied upon the combined cadre position as on 01.07.2025, according to which there was an overall vacancy of 67 posts, comprising four vacancies in the cadre of Senior Accountant and 63 vacancies in the cadre of Accountant.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the DoPT guidelines relating to spouse posting cannot be construed as conferring an absolute right upon an employee to obtain deputation at the station where the spouse is posted. Reliance has also been placed upon Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (1999) 4 SCC 659; State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 372; S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2022) 12 SCC 1; and State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayudu, 2022 INSC 956.
According to the respondents, the competent authority is required to balance the administrative requirements of the parent department against the request for continuation of deputation and the spouse-related circumstances relied upon by the applicant. The respondents accordingly seek dismissal of the Original Application.
During the pendency of the present proceedings, an important development has taken place in relation to the Revised Deputation Policy dated 27.01.2025 and the proceedings arising therefrom.
The aforesaid policy and the order passed by this Tribunal in proceedings concerning the said policy came to be considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6894/2026, Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General (Human Resource, international relations coordination and legal v. Vishal Bhati & Ors., decided on 13.07.2026.
The relevant portion of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:—
“25.We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal to the extent it has disapproved the policy dated 27 January 2025 and has directed that it be reframed.
26.However, Ms. Anand has prayed that our judgment should not stand in the way of the respondents seeking the benefit of the DOPT OM dated 30 September 2009 which deals with spousal postings.
27.We feel this to be a very fair request.
28.Accordingly, while we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal insofar as it has disapproved the deputation policy dated 27 January 2025 of the petitioner and directed its reframing, and also hold that the direction for maintaining status quo regarding the respondents postings at Delhi also does not survive for consideration, we reserve liberty with the respondents, should they so choose, to seek the benefit of the DOPT OM dated 30 September 2009 in accordance with law. They are at liberty to approach the petitioner in that regard.
29.We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the availability or otherwise of the benefit of the DOPT OM dated 30 September 2009. We are sanguine that the petitioner would address the matter in accordance with the legal principles that have been evolved in that regard.
30.Needless to say, should the respondents seek the benefit of the said OM and not obtain any relief, their rights in that regard would also remain reserved.
31.These writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
The Hon’ble High Court, while considering the challenge to the Revised Deputation Policy dated 27.01.2025, quashed and set aside the judgment of this Tribunal insofar as it had disapproved the said policy and directed its reframing. The Hon’ble High Court, however, granted liberty to the concerned employees to seek the benefit of the DoPT OM dated 30.09.2009 relating to posting of husband and wife at the same station, in accordance with law. The Hon’ble High Court specifically observed that it had not expressed any opinion on the availability or otherwise of the benefit of the said OM.
In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the earlier order of this Tribunal, insofar as it dealt with the validity of the Revised Deputation Policy dated 27.01.2025, cannot form the basis for adjudication of the applicant's individual grievance. The claim of the applicant is required to be considered independently in the light of the policy applicable to his case and the relevant instructions governing the same.
It is not in dispute that continuation of an employee on deputation beyond the period sanctioned by the competent authority cannot be claimed as an absolute or indefeasible right. At the same time, while considering an individual request for continuation or extension of deputation, the competent authority is required to take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances placed before it, in accordance with the applicable policy and instructions.
In the present case, the applicant has relied upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court as well as the relevant instructions in support of his claim. The applicant's claim, therefore, deserves to be considered by the competent authority in the first instance, rather than this Tribunal undertaking an examination of the matter on merits at this stage.
We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the applicant to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority, along with a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court and all other relevant documents and judgments upon which he seeks to rely.
Accordingly, the applicant shall submit a detailed representation to the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the Revised Deputation Policy dated 27.01.2025, the applicable DoPT instructions, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court referred to hereinabove, and all other relevant facts and circumstances of the applicant's case, insofar as the same are applicable.
The competent authority shall thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt thereof.
The decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.
It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the applicant. The competent authority shall consider the representation independently and take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, policy, instructions and law.
The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.