$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7489/2017 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Mr. Himanshu Kaushik and Mr. Deepak Kaushik, Advs.

versus M SETHU RAMANLINGAM .....Respondent Through: Mr. Padma Kumar S. Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 17.02.2025 AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The present writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Joint Secretary E/CAO, Ministry of Defence, ["the petitioner", hereinafter] challenging the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, ["the Tribunal", hereinafter] whereby the Tribunal had quashed the decisions of the Ministry of Defence, [“MoD” , hereinafter] and the Ministry of External Affairs denying the respondent, Mr. M. Sethu Ramalingam, the financial benefits accruing from his in-situ promotion to the position of Joint

4 “MEA” , hereinafter

Signature Not VeriWfie.Pd.(C) 7489/2017 Page 1 of 7

Signed By:MEENU

Director during his deputation to Mauritius. The Tribunal further directed the MoD to disburse the arrears in the scale of Joint Director for the period spanning from 28.08.2004 to 20.10.2005, along with an interest of 9% per annum on these arrears.

2. The genesis of this dispute is that the respondent joined the Armed Forces Headquarters Service, [“AFHS”, hereinafter] on 02.02.1997 as Assistant (Direct Recruit) and after serving for a period of around 13 years, he was promoted as Deputy Director (Group 'A' post) in AFHQ CS. Subsequently, he was deputed to Mauritius under the Indian Technical & Economic Cooperation, [6“ ITEC”, hereinafter] Programme of the MEA from 28.08.2004 to 20.10.2005 to train bureaucrats in Mauritius vide MEA order dated

05.11.2003.

3. During the period of his deputation to Mauritius, the respondent, along with 45 others, was granted in situ promotion to the rank of Joint Director vide OM dated 30.10.2006 issued by the MoD. The relevant extract of paragraph 4 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum is reproduced herein-below:-

“The in-situ appointment per se does not involve any change in the existing Command and Control and level/ channel of reporting. However, the concerned establishment may consider making some internal adjustments regarding the level/ channel of submission by the incumbent of the upgraded post as warranted based on functional requirements. Under no circumstances will the officer appointed on in-situ basis be posted against the regular duty post of Jt. Director by concerned establishment on its own. Posting against the regular duty post of Jt. Director, if need be, will be ordered by this office.”

Signature Not VeriWfie.Pd.(C) 7489/2017 Page 2 of 7

Signed By:MEENU

4. Thereafter, vide OM dated 30.10.2006, the MoD (Navy) issued an order on 09.02.2007, fixing the respondent’s pay at Rs.12,000-375-16,500/- with increments. It was noted that the respondent was on deputation with the MEA from 28.08.2004 to

20.10.2005, thus not entitled to the benefit for the deputation period.

5. Resultantly the respondent requested the MEA to pay the difference in pay and allowances for the period of his deputation in Mauritius following his in-situ promotion as Joint Director in AFHQ CS. However, the MEA declined the request, citing the ITEC programme terms, which the respondent had agreed to through an undertaking, stating that he was not entitled to pro forma promotion or financial benefits during the deputation period.

6. The terms and conditions of deputation stipulated that any financial benefits arising from promotions during the deputation period would be borne by the parent department. However, a dispute arose between the MoD and the MEA regarding which ministry was responsible for bearing the financial burden of the respondent’s in-situ promotion.

7. This disagreement led the respondent to approa