The main legal point established is that a government servant on deputation should not suffer due to authorities' omission, and the overstay period should be regularized to grant notional seniority in the parent department.

ORDER :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The prayer in the present petition by an Inspector in the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) is for grant of seniority as Inspector from the date he was promoted as Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) from where he came to the CBI initially on deputation and was later absorbed as such.

2. The background facts are that the Petitioner joined the CRPF on 17th September, 1985 as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) [‘ASI (M)’]. He was promoted as Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) [‘SI (M)’] on 29th January, 1992.

3. He applied for deputation to the CBI as Inspector of Police. Consequent upon his selection, he joined the CBI on deputation basis as Inspector on 1st November, 2000 for an initial period of three years extendable up to five years.

4. The admitted position is that the Petitioner was granted extension of deputation in the CBI consecutively for the fourth and fifth year up to 31st October, 2005.

5. The Petitioner was absorbed in the CBI as Inspector with effect from 20th August, 2008. In the meanwhile, his case for promotion as Inspector was taken up in the CRPF where a DPC was held for that purpose. By a communication dated 2nd June, 2005 the Directorate General, CRPF informed the CBI that the competent authority of the CRPF had approved the promotion of the Petitioner as Inspector (M). A request was made by the Directorate General, CRPF to repatriate him so that he could avail the cadre promotion.

6. In its counter affidavit the CBI admits that it received from the CRPF a letter dated 9th July, 2005 requesting that the Petitioner be relieved by the CBI so that he could avail the cadre promotion in the CRPF. It is stated that on 30th September, 2005, the willingness of the Petitioner for the proforma promotion to Inspector (M) in the CRPF was communicated to the CRPF.

7. It transpires from the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 that the Petitioner was not relieved by the CBI after completion of his five years’ deputation period “in public interest.” It appears that the CRPF wrote numerous letters to the CBI asking it to relieve the Petitioner. In one such communication, it is stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) had not agreed to any further extension of his deputation. In another communication dated 29th January, 2008, it was added, “however, if CBI is interested in his permanent absorption, the same can be examined.”

8. As it transpired, the Petitioner did ultimately get absorbed in the CBI on 20th August, 2008. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, it is stated that on completion of his deputation tenure, he was repatriated with effect from 31st March, 2008 after sanctioning 60 days’ EL due to non-receipt of NOC for further extension. It is further stated that before the expiry of the said leave period, the CBI received the request of the Petitioner for permanent absorption, which was considered and after the due approval, he was permanently absorbed as Inspector.

9. As regards his proforma promotion as Inspector in the CRPF, the counter affidavit filed by the CRPF states that as per the instructions of the DoPT at the relevant point of time, proforma promotion could only be granted during “normal period of deputation and not during the extended period.” However, it is further stated that the Government of India amended this condition in 2006 and allowed the benefit of proforma promotion during the extended period of deputation as well. The stand taken is that the Petitioner’s case pertains to the period prior to the amendment.

10. The fact of the matter is that the Petitioner’s promotion in the CRPF was withheld because he did not report for duty at the end of his deputation period in the CBI. However, as is plain from the subsequent developments, the Petitioner was not relieved by the CBI ‘in public interest’. The case of the Petitioner, in fact, is that he was associated with various important cases, and therefore, was not reli