JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the period of his foreign assignment as deputation and not as Extra Ordinary Leave, to grant him notional increments for the said period, to refix his pay accordingly upon rejoining, and to release all consequential monetary and service benefits arising therefrom.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner was a permanent employee of Sainik School, Kunjpura, functioning under the Sainik Schools Society governed by the Ministry of Defence. He joined service as Mathematics Master on 15.02.1973. In 1975, he applied for a foreign assignment through proper channel. Initially, he expressed willingness to resign if selected, but later the Government of India sponsored his candidature and communicated that he should be treated as on deputation to the foreign government with lien retained on his post.

3. The petitioner was granted Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without pay for three years from the date of release in 1980 to take up the foreign assignment in Nigeria. His tenure abroad continued from October 1980 until February 1986, including extensions. During this period, communications from the Government of India and the Indian High Commission referred to his status as deputation. However, the School authorities treated the period as EOL under the Sainik Schools Society Rules.

4. Upon rejoining duty on 08.01.1986, a dispute arose regarding pay fixation. The respondents denied annual and notional increments for the period spent abroad on the ground that under the Society Rules, EOL does not count for increment or qualifying service. The petitioner submitted multiple representations relying on Government of India communications and Fundamental Rules applicable to foreign service, but his request was rejected in 1992 and reiterated in 1998.

Contentions of the Parties

5. The petitioner contends that his foreign assignment was sanctioned by the Government of India as deputation with lien retained, and therefore should count for notional increments under Fundamental Rule 26(d). He argues that the Society Rules do not specifically govern foreign deputation exceeding 18 months and that where the Rules are silent, Central Government Rules should apply.

6. He further submits that acceptance of pension contribution for the foreign period indicates recognition of lien and continuity of service while contending that denial of notional increments, despite similarly placed government teachers receiving such benefit, is arbitrary and discriminatory.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents maintain that the petitioner was expressly granted EOL under the Sainik Schools Society Rules and that EOL does not count for increment. It is asserted that the Society Rules govern his service conditions exclusively.

8. It is further argued that the petitioner’s claim was already rejected in the year 1992 and the present petition is barred by delay and is therefore, not maintainable. They also contend that the petitioner overstayed abroad beyond the sanctioned period and cannot claim benefits contrary to the applicable Rules.

9. Heard.

Analysis

10. Having heard the submissions raised by the counsel for both parties and perusing the material placed on record, this court is of the opinion that at the heart of the present lis, lies a simple issue:

whether the petitioner’s foreign assignment constitutes deputation entitling him to notional increments, or Extra Ordinary Leave under the Society Rules disentitling him from such benefit?

11. The record unmistakably demonstrates that the petitioner’s foreign assignment was sponsored by the Government of India and communicated with a specific stipulation that he be treated as on deputation to the foreign government in public interest with lien retained on his post. The concept of deputation is not ornamental phraseology but it carries substantive legal consequences.

12. Under Fundame