IMPORTANT POINT
When a deputationist is repatriated, he cannot claim promotions in the parent department on the basis of officiation in higher post in the borrowing organisation.

Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW-Deputation-Concept of-Right of deputationist on his repatriation-Whether he can claim promotions in parent department on basis of officiation in higher post in borrowing organisation?-(No, not in contravention of statutory Rules).
       Held : Concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. Deputation has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word deputation is of no help. In simple words deputation means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. (Para 15)
       (ii) SERVICE LAW-Constitution of India-Article 136-Police Act, 1861-Punjab Police Rules-Rule 21.25-Deputation to CID-Constables in Police Department later deputed to Criminal Investigation Department of Punjab Police-During course of deputation, they earned promotions on ad hoc basis-Some of them reached rank of ad hoc Sub-Inspectors-They served long years in CID-Repatriation to parent departments as Constables-Writ petitions-Judgment of High Court that respondents who put in 20 years of qualifying service would be entitled to seek voluntary retirement from ranks they were holding in CID-Affirmed-It is harsh on respondents to be sent back after serving CID for number of years in higher rank.
       Held : It is in fact an admitted position that Constables on deputation to CID have reached higher ranks and retired from CID in those ranks. A hope, though not true, is instilled in officers like the respondents that they would continue in the CID holding higher ranks till the age of superannuation. The conduct of the appellants now suddenly asking the respondents to go back to their parent departments when they have put in best years of their lives in CID would appear to be rather unjust. It would have been more appropriate for the appellant to repatriate the respondents after the expiry of the initial period of deputation or at least they should have been told the consequences of their continuing on deputation and sudden repatriation. It would also be more appropriate, considering the fact that the deputation in CID could be for any number of years, that the rules are amended and a separate cadre is created in CID to absorb the officers, if they are on deputation for a number of years. It is submitted before us that Constables who have come on deputation to CID retired while holding higher ranks in CID and they earned their pension on the basis of their holding higher ranks though the pension was being paid by their parent department. This may be on the basis of relevant pension rules as applicable in the State. Now, if the respondents go back to their parent department and work there as Constables or Head Constables their emoluments would be reduced considerably and they would be deprived of getting higher pension when they retire. (Para 17)
       Considering the whole aspect of the matter we affirm the order of the High Court to the extent that option be given to all those respondents who have put in 20 years qualifying service to seek voluntary retirement from the CID in the ranks they are holding and they will be deemed to have worked in CID upto the date of this judgment. (Para 18)
       (iii) Police Act, 1861-Punjab Police Rules-Rules 21.25-Deputation to Criminal Investigation Department of Punjab Police-Deputation is for three years-Extension not limited to two years only-Words used in sub-rule to be given an ordinary meaning-Every time deputation is extended, deputationists should be informed of their rights in CID while on deputation vis-a-vis their parent department. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. In this batch of appeals, it is the State of Punjab in the Police Department which is the appellant. There are in all 18 respondents. They were all enrolled as Constables in the Police Department and later deputed to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Punjab Police. During the course of their deputation, they earned promotions on ad hoc basis and some of the respondents reached the rank of ad hoc Sub-Inspectors. When they were sought to be repatriated to their parent departments, they were to go back as Constables or Head Constables if in the meanwhile on deputation they earned any promotion in their parent departments. They had served long years in the CID and the prospect of going back as Constables was not to their liking. They, therefore, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing writ petitions which were allowed to an extent. The High Court did say that the order of repatriation of the respondents being legal could not be set aside as such. However, directions were issued that the cases of the respondents in their parent departments be considered for promotions on the relevant dates when person junior to them were promoted at different levels and, if necessary, even to relax the rules. In some of the cases two directions were given, namely, (1) if the respondents sought voluntary retirement from the posts they were holding in CID the order of repatriation would not come in their way and their cases for voluntary retirement be considered on the basis of the posts they were holding in CID: and (2) to determine the seniority of the respondents in their parent departments by giving them the benefit of service they rendered in CID and consequently to be considered for promotion with effect from the date the persons junior to them were promoted.

3. To understand the rival contentions, we shall consider the case of Inder Singh one of the respondents (CA Nos. 1293-1303 of 1995). He was enrolled in the Punjab Police on August 31, 1966 as Constable and on April 13, 1969 was sent on deputation to CID in the same rank. He was sought to be repatriated on September 15, 1990 while he was holding the rank of ad hoc Sub-Inspector. During this period of deputation, Inder Singh, by order dated February 19, 1985 was promoted as officiating Head-Constable after giving him exemption under the relevant rules which we will consider hereinafter. In the parent Department, he was holding the substantive rank of Head Constable. During the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, we are told that there was stay of order of repatriation. Inder Singh was not, however, given any posting till the judgment was delivered by the High Court. On November 7, 1994, he was posted in the CID unit at Faridkot. However, this joining was subject to final decision of the present appeal. This Court at the time of the admission of the special leave petition granted status quo which is continuing. The appellant has, therefore, contended that from the date of repatriation, Inder Singh remained absent uptil November 6, 1994. Taking into account this period of four years, Inder Singh was on deputation in CID for over 28 years. We may note that the Department has not taken any action against Inder Singh for his alleged absence from the date of the order of repatriation till the order of his rejoining CID and his posting at Faridkot. The High Court in granting relief to respondents negatived the contention of the State that the respondents could not be promoted to higher posts in their parent departments without passing the various departmental examinations as per the relevant Rules. That was how the High Court dealt with these contentions first by allowing the writ petitions by the learned single Judge and then on appeal before the Division Bench filed by the State against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The High Court was of the view that in terms o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1316

IMPORTANT POINTWhen a deputationist is repatriated, he cannot claim promotions in the parent department on the basis of officiation in higher post in the borrowing organisation.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
When a deputationist is repatriated, he cannot claim promotions in the parent department on the basis of officiation in higher post in the borrowing organisation.