Arun R.S vs Union Of India

P.G.Ajithkumar, J

The petitioner filed O.A.No.245 of 2023 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench seeking to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to extend his period of inter-cadre deputation for a further period of two years. The Tribunal as per the order dated 12.04.2024 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this original petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner belongs to Indian Forest Service, Manipur Cadre. He was granted inter-cadre deputation to Kerala for a period of three years. He joined Kerala cadre on 26.06.2020. He applied for inter-cadre deputation on personal grounds, that his father was suffering from various ailments due to old-age and nobody else is there to look him after. Further reason urged is that his wife was doing her Ph.D. at Thiruvananthapuram and their children are aged 6 and 2 years. Citing the said reasons, the petitioner submitted application for extension of his deputation for a further prior of two years from 26.06.2023.

The petitioner submitted application for extension on 12.12.2022. Both the State of Kerala and State of Manipur gave no-objection for the extension of his inter-cadre deputation. However, the Government of India rejected the request of the petitioner for extension as per the letter dated 15.11.2022. The reasons stated is that the State Government did not state any cogent reason for extension of the deputation. Yet another reason stated is that the application for extension did not reach the Central Government before three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation as stipulated in clause (g) in Annexure A8 guidelines.

The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal by contending that the petitioner was entitled for extension of the deputation in view of the guidelines governing the inter-cadre deputation contained in Annexure A8 office memorandum and that the request, in fact, was submitted in time. The Tribunal held that the proposal for extension of the petitioner’s deputation was sent to the Central Government within the prescribed time and the finding to the contrary in Annexure A7 order is incorrect. However, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the petitioner was not entitled to get the period of deputation extended in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner assailed the said finding in this original petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned DSGI-in-charge and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

The petitioner was allowed inter-cadre deputation and accordingly he joined Kerala cadre on 26.06.2020. He submitted Annexure A2 application on 12.12.2022 for extension of his inter-cadre deputation. Annexure A3 is the no-objection certificate issued by the Government of Kerala. It is dated 14.02.2023. Annexure A6 is the no-objection certificate issued by the Government of Manipur. It is dated 23.03.2023. The petitioner would contend that going by the provisions of clauses (c) and (d) of Annexure A8 guidelines his inter-cadre deputation should have been extended. Clauses (c) and (d) read as follows:

“(c) Inter-cadre deputations have normally been processed only in cases where individual officers have sought a deputation in view of the personal difficulties. A request for inter-cadre deputation will be entertained only if it is forwarded by the State Government concerned with their consent/No objection along with the request of the officer.

(d) All cases of inter-cadre deputation of All India Services officers will initially be restricted to three years, extendable by two more years, after review.”

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per clause (e) of Annexure A8 guidelines, the total allowable period of inter-cadre deputation in the entire career of an officer is five years and therefore extension of petitioner’s deputation should have been allowed. It is submitted that the deputation is allowed in view of the personal difficulties as per clause (c) and when the petitioner is sailing through the most difficult circumstances in his life, the period of his deputation is liable to be extended. Therefore, the order rejecting his request for extension of deputation is untenable. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited several examples as evidenced by Annexures A10, A11, A12 and A13 to contend that so many other persons were given deputation beyond the period of three years by the Government of India.

The Tribunal in the impugned order held that the proposal for inter-cadre deputation of the petitioner was sent prior to three months next before the period of initial deputation and the finding in the contrary in Annexure A7 order is not correct. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the application for extension was submitted much earlier by the petitioner and no objection certificates from both the States were forwarded to the Government of India, prior to the last three months of the period of extension. Hence, we concur with the said finding of the Tribunal.

As pointed out above, inter-cadre deputation is permitted in view of personal difficulties. The difficulty owing to which the petitioner applied for the initial inter-cadre deputation was age-old ailments of his father and that his wife and children were in Kerala. The Government of India accepting the said grounds allowed him inter-cadre deputation for three years. Indisputably, extension of the period of deputation shall never be automatic. But a conjoint reading of clauses (c) and (d) in Annexure A8 would indicate that the criteria for extension of deputation is also personal difficulties, but only after a review extension by two more years would be allowed.

The learned DSGI-in-charge by pointing out clauses (g) and (h) in Annexure A8 would submit that the officer on deputation should be relieved immediately on completion of the original tenure, without waiting for orders on his application for extension. In this case, no such contingency arose since the application for extension of the petitioner was rejected on 24.05.2023, which was before the expiry of the period of initial deputation. The continuance of the petitioner in Kerala cadre beyond 26.06.2023, the date of expiry of the period of his deputation, has been on the strength of the interim order granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether a direction is liable to be given for extension of the petitioner’s period of deputation.

The view taken in Annexure A7 order is that the consent of the State Government has been given without showing any cogent reason and the same was not submitted within three months next before the expiry of the period of deputation. The observation that the consent of the State Government was not submitted within time, is held by the Tribunal to be incorrect. It is true that Annexure A7 being a pure administrative order, the competent authority might not be obliged to give decipherable reasons to support the conclusion. But in this case, as pointed out above, the reason for according permission for initial inter-cadre deputation still exists. When those reasons with worsened impact on the life of the petitioner exist, the finding that no cogent reason was stated by the State Government is appeared prima facie incorrect.

In the above view of the matter, we find that the whole matter needs reconsideration by the competent authority in order to decide afresh whether the petitioner is entitled to get extension of deputation for a further period of two years with effect from 26.06.2023. Maximum period the petitioner can work on inter-cadre deputation in his whole service is 5 years. What is left now from that period is less than one year. In our view that also is a reason for a reconsideration of the request of the petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the original petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 12.04.2024 is set aside. Resultantly, Annexure A7 order dated 24.05.2023 is set aside. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to place the matter before the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet for taking a fresh decision on the request of the petitioner for extension of inter-cadre deputation to Kerala for a further period of two years with effect from 26.06.2023. Until a decision is taken on that matter, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on inter-cadre deputation in Kerala.