1. Government employees on deputation to another department were reverted to their parent department and challenged the reversion. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 234
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : M.N.Venkatachaliah
Block Development Officers Association
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 4614-20 of 1992
Date of Decision : 2/14/95
Employees on deputation are deemed to continue in their capacity in their parent department and are entitled to promotions and benefits granted to their juniors or similarly situated persons in that parent department during the period of deputation.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Deputation - Promotion and Benefits - Employees on deputation to another department are deemed to continue in their capacity in the parent department - They cannot be put to prejudice regarding their service career in the parent department - Entitled to all benefits given to persons junior to them or those similarly situated in the parent department - If juniors are promoted to higher cadres during the period of deputation, the state must consider the deputationists for promotion from the relevant dates and grant consequential benefits if found suitable. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were sent on deputation as officers to a different department for a period of 5-12 years. Following the implementation of new recruitment rules, they were reverted to their parent department. The challenge against the reversion was dismissed by the administrative tribunal. The appellants further contended that juniors in their parent department were promoted to higher cadres during their period of deputation without their consideration.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the tribunal's reasoning regarding the reversion. However, it held that the appellants should not be prejudiced in their service career in the parent department due to their deputation.
Issues: Whether employees on deputation are entitled to promotions and benefits in their parent department if their juniors are promoted during the period of deputation.
Ratio Decidendi: Employees on deputation are deemed to continue in their capacity in the parent department and are entitled to the same benefits and promotion opportunities as their juniors or similarly situated persons in that parent department.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contended that juniors in their parent department were promoted to higher cadres without considering the appellants' cases during their deputation period. (Para 2 )
3. Employees on deputation are deemed to continue in their parent department capacity and should not be prejudiced regarding service benefits or promotions. (Para 2 )
4. Personnel on deputation are entitled to the same promotion benefits as their juniors or similarly situated persons in their parent department. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal disposed of; State directed to consider appellants for promotion from the dates juniors were promoted and grant consequential benefits if suitable. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Does deputation to another department affect an employee's seniority or promotion prospects in their parent department?
No. Employees on deputation are deemed to continue in their capacity within the parent department and are entitled to benefits and promotion considerations granted to juniors or similarly situated persons in that department. (Para 2 )
7. What remedy is available to an employee on deputation if juniors in the parent department are promoted during their absence?
The employee is entitled to be considered for promotion from the relevant dates when the juniors were considered, with entitlement to consequential benefits if found suitable. (Para 2 )
(1) APPELLANTS 2-8 originally belonged to the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. They were sent on deputation as Block Development Officers (BDOs) to the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. It is not disputed that the appellants worked in the Rural Development Department as BDOs for a period between 5-12 years. The rules called the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat and Rural Development (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988 (the Rules) came into force with effect from 11/4/1988. Thereafter the appellants were reverted back to their parent department. They challenged the order of reversion before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative tribunal. The tribunal by its judgment dated 8/6/1992/30/6/19922 dismissed the bunch applications filed by the appellants. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the tribunal.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the tribunal. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, contended that during the period the appellants were working in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, persons junior to them in the parent department have been promoted to the higher cadres, without considering the cases of the appellants. The learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh is not in a position to controvert the same. No counter-affidavit has been filed to the additional affidavit filed by the appellants in this court. He states that the copy of the additional affidavit was not given to him and as such it was not possible for the State to assist this court in respect of the contents of the additional affidavit. Be that as it may, the appellants cannot be put to any prejudice so far as their service career in the parent department is concerned. In whatever capacity they were working in their parent department, they would be deem to be continuing in that capacity while on deputation as BDOs in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. The appellants are entitled to all those benefits in their parent department which are given to the persons junior to them or those who are similarly situated. In case any of the persons junior to the appellants have been promoted to the higher cadres during the period when the appellants were on deputation, the State of Madhya Pradesh shall consider the appellants for promotion from the relevant dates when the persons junior to them were considered. In case the appellants are found suitable for promotion after such consideration, they will be entitled to all the consequential benefits.
(3) THE appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
