Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4827

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Sumeet Jerath, A
Vishal Bhati – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Comptroller And Auditor General – Respondent
OA No. 1263/2025 | OA No. 1711/2025 | OA No. 2808/2025 | OA No. 2631/2025 | OA No. 2996/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajesh Luthra, Sriparna Chatterjee, Aanchal Anand, Amit Anand, Nishant Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondents: Siddhant Sharma

Executive policy limiting deputation tenure is subject to judicial review if it is arbitrary or lacks a rational basis. Where deputation serves as a de-facto transfer, agencies must balance administrative efficiency with the constitutional mandate to facilitate family welfare through transparent and flexible posting mechanisms.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Service Law - Deputation - Policy formulation - Limitation of tenure - Challenge to departmental policy capping deputation at seven years - Whether policy is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of equality clause - Policy decisions of executive in service administration are not amenable to interference unless shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of constitutional provisions - While guidelines are not mandatory, they involve significant social objectives including gender equality and family welfare, necessitating meaningful consideration. (Paras 60, 61, 63)

(B) Service Law - Deputation - Nature of - Internal deputation as a substitute for transfer - In absence of a regular transfer mechanism, deputation within the same organization acts as a transfer - Rigid application of traditional deputation rules without considering personal hardships and the absence of alternatives renders policy vulnerable to challenge. (Paras 62, 66)

Facts of the case:
Public employees, serving under a specific administrative organization, challenged a newly implemented policy limiting deputation tenure to seven years with a mandatory three-year cooling-off period. Applicants, who had been on deputation for spouse-based considerations following the discontinuation of unilateral transfers, argued the policy was arbitrary, discriminatory due to specific exceptions carved out for certain cadres, and failed to adhere to government guidelines concerning family welfare and women's participation in the workforce.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while the executive has the prerogative to frame policies, such policies must pass the test of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. The impugned policy lacked a rational nexus for the exemptions provided and imposed a one-size-fits-all restriction without a flexible mechanism to address genuine personal hardships, such as spouse-based postings. The court found that the deputation environment in this case functioned effectively as an internal transfer system rather than standard departmental deputation.

Issues: Whether the restrictive deputation policy is arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent with social welfare objectives, and whether the court should interfere with the administrative policy.

Ratio Decidendi: Policy decisions must be balanced against principles of fairness and the social objective of maintaining family unity, especially where the organization lacks an alternative transfer mechanism. A policy that permits exemptions without a clear rational basis and applies a rigid cap without accounting for legitimate hardship is arbitrary and requires reconsideration to align with constitutional standards.

Result: Original Applications allowed in part; policy remitted for reconsideration; status quo maintained for applicants pending review.

Table of Content
1. deputation policies versus spouse-based transfer directives. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. administrative prerogative in transfer/deputation versus employee rights. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
3. applicability of precedents based on factual context variations. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
4. judicial review of administrative policy for fairness and arbitrariness. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72)
5. equitable interim relief and time-bound reconsideration of policy. (Para 73 , 74 , 75)

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

1. The issue in all these Original Applications is the same and hence with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the captioned OAs have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. However, for writing the present order, the facts are being taken from OA No. 1263/2025 (Vishal Bhati & Ors. v. CAG)) treating the same as the lead case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicants are working in various field offices of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (hereinafter referred to as IA & AD). Under the existing policy of the IA & AD permitting deputation on spouse grounds, the Applicants herein are working at their respective places of deputation with the borrowing offices within IA & AD. The office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (hereinafter referred to as CAG) has a policy governing deputation, and in this regard, circulars and letters have been issued from time to time. As per letter dated 28.12.1981, the Heads of Departments in IA & AD were authorized to send their staff on deputation within IA & AD under their own powers after mutual consultation. No time limit was prescribed for such deputations; however, it was provided that deputations extending beyond four years would require approval from Headquarters. Subsequently, the office of CAG issued a letter dated 27.08.1997 addressed to all Accountant Generals/Directors of Audit, whereby the scheme of unilateral transfer within IA & AD and from Ministries/Departments to IA & AD was dispensed with. Consequently, deputation remained the only mode to meet emergent and unavoidable personal circumstances of employees, including on spouse grounds. Employees, including the Applicants, therefore opted for deputation to be with their families. The Government of India, through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), has issued several Office Memoranda to ensure that husband and wife are posted at the same station.

3. It is submitted that that as per DoPT OM No. 28034/23/2004-Estt(A) dated 23.08.2004, the Government emphasized enhancement of women’s status in all sectors. It was observed that earlier guidelines dated 03.04.1986 and 12.06.1997 were not being followed in letter and spirit, and therefore strict compliance was mandated while deciding requests for posting of spouses at the same station. A true copy of the OM dated 23.08.2004 is annexed and marked as Annexure A-5.

4. Counsel for the Applicants submits that DoPT OM No. 28034/9/2009-Estt. (A) dated 30.09.2009 reiterated the importance of posting spouses together to promote family welfare, women’s participation in service, and the welfare of children. The OM laid down detailed guidelines, including preferential posting of spouses at the same or nearest station, depending on service conditions.

5. Counsel for the Applicants submits that in compliance with the above DoPT guidelines, the office of CAG issued a letter dated 11.02.2015 stating that in the absence of a unilateral transfer scheme, requests of officials for posting at the spouse’s station may be considered through deputation within IA & AD. A true cop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4827

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALHarvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Sumeet Jerath, AVishal Bhati – AppellantVersusDeputy Comptroller And Auditor General – RespondentOA No. 1263/2025 | OA No. 1711/2025 | OA No. 2808/2025 | OA No. 2631/2025 | OA No. 2996/2025

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, J, Sumeet Jerath, A
Vishal Bhati – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Comptroller And Auditor General – Respondent
OA No. 1263/2025 | OA No. 1711/2025 | OA No. 2808/2025 | OA No. 2631/2025 | OA No. 2996/2025