Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
N Maya Ifs vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 23 August, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No.180/00423/2022
Friday, this the 23rd day of August, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. ANINDO MAJUMDAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
N. Maya IFS,
D/o. Mohanakumar D., aged 41 years,
Managing Director,
Kerala State Film Development Corporation,
Thiruvananthapuram 694 014,
residing at VRAC5, Manjeeram,
T.N. Gopinathan Nair Road,
Vazhuthacaud,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 014. - Applicant
[By Advocates : Mr. A. Sudhi Vasudevan, Sr. along with Ms. Shilpa
Sathish and Mr. Indrajith S. Kaimal]
Versus
1. Union of India,
represented by the Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training,
J674, VJW, North Block,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi,
Delhi - 110 001.
2. Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India,
2
6th Floor, Prithwi Wing,
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jor Bagh Road, Ali Ganj,
New Delhi - 110 003.
3. Director, Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India, 6th Floor,
Prithwi Wing, Indira
Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road,
Ali Ganj, New Delhi - 110 003.
4. Appointments Committee of the Cabinet,
represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India,
J674, VJW, North Block,
Central Secretariat,
New Delhi, Delhi 110 001.
5. State of Kerala,
represented by Chief Secretary to Government,
General Administration (AIS C) Department,
Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001. - Respondents
[By Advocates : Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC (R1-4) and
Mr. Baijuraj G., Sr. GP (R5)]
The Original Application having been heard on 30.07.2024, the
Tribunal on 23.08.2024 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member The applicant is a 2010 batch Indian Forest Service officer of the Manipur State in North East cadre. On her request, she was granted inter- 3 cadre deputation to her home state, State of Kerala for three years, by Annexure A2 dated 31.7.2017, on personal grounds, as per Rule 6 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, read with Annexure A1 OM dated 11.7.2006. While she was on deputation, Annexure A3 OM dated 5.9.2017 was issued by the DoP&T prescribing consolidated guidelines on inter-cadre deputation. Before the expiry of the period of Annexure A2 deputation, she sought for extension of deputation by two more years beyond 19.8.2020. Her request was approved by Annexure A4 order dated 8.6.2020. This period was to expire on 19.8.2022. Before expiry of that extended period, Annexure A8 representation dated 30.12.2021 was submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for extension of inter-cadre deputation for a further period of four years from 19.8.2022. on personal and health issues. The 5th respondent State of Kerala by Annexure A9 communication dated 18.2.2022 informed 2nd respondent Ministry that the State Government has no objection in extension of inter-cadre deputation. State of Manipur by Annexure A10 communication informed the 2nd respondent that it has also no objection in extending the inter-cadre deputation. The 2nd respondent Secretary to Government, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, by Annexure A17 dated 17.3.2022 informed her that her request was examined by the Ministry but 4 did not accede to it, in the light of a clause in Annexure A3 OM, which stipulated that every spell shall not exceed five years at a time. Thereupon, she submitted Annexure A18 representation dated 30.3.2022 before the 3rd respondent Director of the Ministry for recommendation of her request for deputation for four more years and to place her request before respondent No. 1 DoP&T, and for approval by the 4th respondent Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC). By Annexure A19, the 2nd respondent rejected Annexure A18, reiterating the DoP&T OM that every spell shall not exceed five years. Thereafter, she submitted another representation as Annexure A20 dated 11.4.2022 before the 3rd respondent confining her request to one year, in the backdrop of Annexures A21 and A22 DoP&T OMs granting extension of deputation for six months for male officers in relaxation of policy.
2. Contending that Annexure A20 representation was not disposed of, the present OA was filed. It came up for hearing on 4.8.2022 and was adjourned for the reply statement of the respondents. After two postings on 17.8.2022, an order to maintain status quo was passed. The OA was adjourned for filing the reply statement by the respondents. Pending the OA, pursuant to an order of the ACC (4th respondent) dated 6.3.2023, the proposal for the extension of tenure was declined on the ground that tenure of inter-cadre deputation of 5 the applicant had ended on 19.8.2022. The order dated 6.3.2024 of the 4th respondent was communicated by Annexure A30. Annexure R4 was the OM of 2nd respondent by which the matter was placed before the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the OA was amended.
3. Claiming that applicant has established genuine personal difficulties substantiating the continuation of inter-cadre deputation and that the interpretation offered to Annexure A3 guidelines for declining the request of applicant was wrong and also that identically situated persons have been granted extension beyond the prescribed period and thus the principle of equality was violated, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. The main reliefs sought in the amended OA are as follows:
"a. Set aside Annexure A17 and Annexure A19 orders and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider expeditiously and take a decision favorably on Annexure A8 and Annexure A18 requests of the applicant for extension of inter cadre deputation for four years and forward the same for final approval of the respondents 1 and 4.
Or in alternative b. Direct the 2nd respondent to take an expeditious decision favorably on Annexure A20 request of the applicant for extension of inter cadre deputation for one year and forward the same for final approval of the respondents 1 and 4.
(ba) Declare that Annexure A29 OM No. 13017/28/2022-AIS.I dated 15.11.2022 has no application in relation to the requests made by the applicant for extension of inter cadre deputation as per Annexure A8, Annexure A18 and Annexure A20.6
Or in the alternative Declare that Annexure A29 OM No. 13017/28/2022-AIS.I dated 15.11.2022 is arbitrary as well as unenforceable and set aside the same. (bb) Direct the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to allow the requests for extension of inter cadre deputation made by the applicant as per Annexure A8 and Annexure A18.
Or in the alternative Direct respondents 1 and 4 to approve Annexure R4 decision of the 2nd respondent.
(bc) Direct the respondents not to relieve the applicant from the Kerala cadre till Annexure A8 and Annexure A18 are reconsidered and a final decision on the same is taken by the authority concerned, in the light of the order to be passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, untrammeled by Annexure A17, Annexure A19 and Annexure A29 OM No. 13017/28/2022-AIS.I dated 15.11.2022.
Or in the alternative Direct respondents to allow the applicant to continue in the Kerala cadre in the light of Annexure R4 decision of the 2nd respondent. (bd) Declare that Annexure A30 OM No. 37/4/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 6.3.2023 is arbitrary and unreasonable."
4. Heard the learned Sr. counsel Mr. A. Sudhi Vasudevan instructed by Advocate Ms. Shilpa Sathish, Mrs. O.M. Shalina, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel and Mr. Baijuraj, learned Sr. GP. Examined the records.
5. Annexure A24 dated 08.11.2004 and Annexure A25 dated 31.10.2005 are the two general guidelines governing inter-cadre deputation of All India Service Officers. Clause 2(ii) of Annexure A24 provided that inter-cadre 7 deputations are normally processed only in cases where individual officers seek deputation in view of the personal difficulties. Having regard to the fact that several requests were received from Governments, it was directed that all such proposals may be examined subject to the concurrence of concerned Officers and States involved. Clause 2(iii) provided that the total allowable period of inter-cadre deputation in the entire career of an officer shall be five years. No extension of inter-cadre deputation beyond five years shall be allowed. However, inter-cadre deputation at a time normally cannot exceed three years. By virtue of para (vi) of Annexure A24, it was provided that a request for extension up to a maximum period of five years will be entertained only if it was forwarded by the State Government concerned with cogent reasons and at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. Para (iv) provided that the inter-cadre deputation was valid only for the period for which it was allowed by the Central Government and any extension was neither automatic nor should be presumed. Certain clarifications were issued by Annexure A25.
6. Though these are general guidelines, the more crucial documents relating to the inter-cadre deputation are Annexures A1 & A3. Annexure A1 is an Office Memorandum dated 11.07.2006 regarding inter-cadre 8 deputation of All India Service Officers. The relevant clause is Clause (2), which provided as follows:
"(2) Lady officers. All India Service lady officers borne on the North-East Cadres may by allowed to go on inter-cadre deputation after completion of six years of actual service in the North East. Such lady officers would also be eligible for deputation for a maximum of 9 years instead 5 years. The lady officers would have the flexibility to utilize the maximum allowable period of inter-cadre deputation in two spells instead of one."
7. Evidently, three years inter-cadre deputation on personal grounds was granted to the applicant herein by Annexure A2 order having regard to Clause (2) of Annexure A1. Annexure A1 was superseded by Annexure A3 dated 05.09.2017. The corresponding relevant Clause under Annexure A3 is Clause 1(B)(i), which provided as follows:
"(i) Relaxation for Lady Officer:
All India Service lady officers borne on a North East Cadre may be allowed to go on Inter-cadre deputation including her Home State after completion of 6 (Six) years of actual service in the North East. Such lady officers would also be eligible for deputation for a maximum of 9 (Nine) years with flexibility to utilize the maximum allowable period of inter- cadre deputation in two or more spells in her entire career. Every spell should not exceed 5 (Five) years at a time."
8. The last paragraph of Annexures A1, A3 & A4 contained a common Clause reflecting the procedure to be followed for processing applications for inter-cadre deputation. It provided as follows:
"The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change are requested to consider all the requests for Inter-cadre Deputation and Change of Cadre keeping in view the aforesaid 9 consolidated guidelines. All such requests shall continue to be processed and submitted for the consideration and orders of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet after obtaining approval of the Minister-in- charge."
9. A cumulative reading of all the guidelines clearly indicates that the pre-condition for sanctioning of inter-cadre deputation and for it's extension was concurrence of the concerned State Governments and the officer concerned. The above quoted last clause of Annexure A1, A3 & A24 which are identical takes in two specific stages. The first stage was processing of the application by the Ministry of Home Affairs/Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change as the case may be and obtaining of approval of the Minister-in-charge. It was thereafter submitted for consideration and orders of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. This clearly shows that after obtaining the concurrence from the concerned States and that of the officer concerned, the matter has to be placed before the concerned Minister-in-charge of the Ministry for his approval. If approval is obtained, the next stage of placing the matter for consideration of Appointments Committee of the Cabinet arises. Necessarily, any application could be rejected at the stage of Minister-in-charge. However, if it is approved by the Minister-in-charge, it has to be placed before Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for appropriate orders.
10
10. The original request for inter-cadre deputation of the applicant was sanctioned by Annexure A2 order dated 31.07.2017 and evidently dealt with in terms of the provisions under Annexure A1 Office Memorandum. Annexure A3 Office Memorandum came into existence later. In the meanwhile, the extension request of the applicant was sanctioned by Annexure A4 which admittedly was dealt with in accordance with the guidelines in Annexure A3. Pending the OA, by order dated 15.11.2022 Annexure A29 guideline was brought into force. Even though it was admitted by both sides that Annexure A29 has no application to the facts of the case, still it was relied on by the learned SCGSC for the purpose of interpreting the relevant clause in Annexures A1 & A3. The relevant clause in Annexure A29 is Clause (e). Clause (e) provides as follows:
"e. The total allowable period of inter-cadre deputation in the entire career of the officer shall be five years. No extension of inter-cadre deputation beyond five years shall be allowed."
11. The learned Sr. Counsel for applicant assailed Annexures A17 & A19 on the ground that the application submitted by the applicant for extension of her deputation by two years was rejected by the authorities on a wrong interpretation of Clause 1(B)(i) of Annexure A3. The learned Sr. Counsel invited our attention to the said clause which stated that lady officers who are entitled for relaxation under the said Clause would be eligible for 11 deputation for a maximum of nine years with flexibility to utilize the maximum allowable period of inter-cadre deputation in two of more spells in her entire career. Every spell should not exceed five years at a time. (emphasis supplied). The last part of the said Clause was wrongly interpreted by the Authority to reject the request of the applicant, it was contended. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, "every spell should not exceed five years at a time" meant that each period of deputation granted or extended shall be reckoned as each spell. It was contended that the applicant was initially on inter-cadre deputation for a spell of three years and thereafter, extension for a further spell of two years was granted. Each period was liable to be considered as separate spell and such spell, in each case, did not exceed five years. It was contended that the Clause only prescribed that every spell should not exceed five years at a time. It was contended that it was not the cumulative period that was to be reckoned as a spell. Consequently, there was no legal bar in granting further period of two years and the authorities went wrong in considering and treating the sanctioned deputation period as one spell. Thus, the view that further extension would exceed the five years maximum period described in the said Clause was faulty, it was contended.
12
12. The learned Sr. Counsel, to supplement his above contention, pointed out that by Annexures A17 & A19, the request for extension was declined on the premise that it exceeded five years period. However, when the applicant submitted Annexure A20 application for extension by one year, Ministry by Annexure R4 order forwarded the proposal for approval of ACC. According to the learned Sr. Counsel the stand taken by the respondent that granting of extension would have violated the five years cap provided in Clause 1(B)(i) was either abandoned by Annexure R4 or they agreed to the interpretation given to the disputed clause by the applicant. The stand taken by Ministry in Annexure R4 itself militated against the very stand taken in Annexures A17 and A19, it was contended.
13. On the other hand, the learned SCGSC contended that the said clause was so clear and unambiguous and did not call for an interpretation as advanced by the learned Sr. Counsel. It was contended by the learned SCGSC that after the initial deputation period of three years, the applicant sought for an extension of that period by further two years, which was granted. Thus, the initial period of three years was extended for a further by two years. The next request was for a further extension by four years. An extension can only indicate a prolongation of the original period, it was argued. The term "every spell" employed in the clause would take in both 13 the original deputation period of three years and two years extension, which was granted. A further extension by four years would have been hit by the last portion of the said Clause, it was contended.
14. A cursory reading of the said Clause in Annexure A1 shows that an Officer was entitled for inter-cadre deputation for a maximum period of nine years. Flexibility was granted to utilize the maximum allowable period of inter-cadre deputation in two spells instead of one spell. However, this provision was further modified when Annexure A3 was issued. It provided that the maximum nine years inter-cadre deputation period permitted under the OM could be utilized in two or more spells, however, subject to a cap that every spell should not exceed five years at a time. The relaxation granted was to choose to utilize it in two or more spells in her "entire career". The Clause thereafter that every spell should not exceed five years at a time clearly indicates that after a period of five years there has to be a gap; only then she can utilize it in the next spell. The interpretation as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel does not appear to be discernible from the wordings employed in the said Clause. If the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for applicant is accepted, one officer can continue on inter cadre deputation for full stretch of 9 years by getting each period extended, each time, by periods less than five years. It will defeat the object 14 of placing an upper limit of five years. Clearly, it has to be a cumulative five years period at a stretch with gap thereafter. Consequently, the authorities were justified in declining the further extension by four years as sought after the expiry of a cumulative five years period.
15. The learned SCGSC justified Annexure R4, by contending that the extension sought for one year was recommended by Ministry since it was to be considered in relaxation of the Rules. It was in that context Annexure R4 order was passed. It does not in any manner militate against the interpretation offered to Clause 1(B)(i) by the respondents. The learned SCGSC was justified in the above submission.
16. The learned Senior Counsel, assailing the impugned orders further contended that the applicant had sought for inter-cadre deputation projecting personal difficulties as required under the general policy. In Annexure A24 general policy of inter-cadre deputation at Clause 2(ii), it was specifically provided that inter-cadre deputations could be permitted only on personal difficulties. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the applicant in Annexure A8 representation had projected three specific reasons for claiming inter-cadre deputation. She stated that her husband was an IRS Officer and was posted at Chennai, evidenced by Annexure A14. She had two school going children who were studying in Thiruvananthapuram, 15 evidenced by Annexures A15 and A16. She had aged mother and in-laws, all of whom were dependent on her. She further stated that she was an asthmatic, undergoing treatment and was advised to stay away from cold region. Hence, she was unable to go back to Manipur immediately, it was submitted.
17. The above grounds mentioned in Annexure A8 were reiterated in her subsequent representations produced as Annexures A18 and A20. To substantiate her medical grounds, applicant relied on Annexure A11, a certificate issued by the Consultant of General Hospital. Annexures A12 and A13 were the Pulmonary Function Test and medical records issued by Sahrudaya Hospital at Alleppey. Relying on it, it was contended that the applicant was entitled for inter-cadre deputation for a further period, which was not appreciated by the authorities in the right perspective.
18. Refuting the above contentions, the learned SCGSC pointed out that Annexure A12, the Pulmonary Function Test related to the year 2018. It was further contended that though the applicant had relied on Annexure A11 and other medical certificates to project her medical grounds, none of the medical records were placed before the concerned authorities to establish that she had a genuine grievance. It is seen that Annexure A11 was not enclosed with Annexures A8, A18 and A20 and consequently, the Ministry 16 and the ACC did not had the advantage of perusing it. In other words, there was no medical record before the competent authority, to supplement her contention that she was entitled for extension of deputation on medical grounds.
19. To supplement the above contention, and to establish that applicant was discriminated against, learned Senior Counsel referred to various documents by which several officers were granted extension of deputation for periods exceeding five years. It was pointed out that one officer was granted five years inter-cadre deputation initially by Annexure A5. It was extended by a further period of two years by Annexure A6. The said officer was again granted a further extension of two years, by Annexure A7. The learned Senior Counsel further relied on Annexures A21, A22 and A23(2) to A23(7) to contend that several All India Service Officers were granted extension/inter-cadre deputation exceeding five years.
20. It is pertinent to note that the case of the Officer covered by Annexure A7 was prior to Annexure A3, by which an upper limit of five years was fixed. On the other hand, all other documents relied on by the applicant as above, were subsequent to Annexure A3. However, extension beyond the period of five years were granted in relaxation of policy as specifically mentioned in those orders granting inter-cadre deputation. There cannot be 17 any dispute that though those periods were in excess five years, all were considered, granted and extension granted in relaxation of the policy. Clearly ACC was justified, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relaxation.
21. The learned Senior Counsel, to supplement his contention that the applicant was discriminated against, specifically relied on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in Pankaj Kumar Pal IAS v. Union of India and others [(2011) SCC Online CAT 3796]. In the decision cited above, an officer belonging to Manipur-Tripura Cadre was under serious threat from the militants. In spite of his requests for inter-cadre change, which was sponsored by the State Government, the permanent cadre transfer was declined and he was granted only an inter-cadre deputation for a period of three years, which was under challenge. The learned Senior Counsel specifically relied on paragraph 8 which dealt the allegation of hostile discrimination advanced by the applicant. It was held that the legitimate and legally admissible cadre change was denied to the applicant therein, when there was enough evidence to show that there existed extreme hardship for the applicant. It was held that in the absence of a clear rebuttal from the 1st respondent on the allegation of hostile discrimination, the Pick and Choose Policy gives rise to suspicion of arbitrariness. The Tribunal held 18 that the applicant's case deserved reconsideration by the 1st respondent. This decision was heavily relied on by the learned Senior Counsel to contend that there was discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, in so far as the applicant was discriminated from among the officers, who were granted extension exceeding five years, covered by the documents referred to above.
22. It is pertinent to note that the specific ground for seeking inter-cadre deputation as mentioned in the guidelines was personal difficulty. As rightly contended by the learned SCGSC, personal difficulties may differ from person to person and such ground has to be established on facts. Each case has to be decided on its individual merits and the factual situation may be different. Applicant is not entitled to allege discrimination on the mere ground that certain other persons, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances that existed in their case, were granted special treatment. It was on specific ground made out in the case of officer involved in Pankaj Kumar Pal's case (supra), that hostile discrimination was found by the Administrative Tribunal. Such a case is not established here. On the other hand, when the transfer was rejected on a firm ground that the request was in violation of the transfer policy and exceeding the cap fixed in the transfer 19 guidelines, the question of hostile discrimination and merits of her case on personal difficulties may not assume much significance.
23. Yet another contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant was that for declining the request of the applicant, for inter-cadre deputation the authority did not furnish any cogent reason. It was contended that the decision making authority was bound to assign reasons. It was contended that though the authority was not statutorily or otherwise bound to communicate the reasons to the applicant, the reason should be discernible from record and in case of challenge, the authority must be able to sustain the decision with cogent reasons recorded on files. No such ground with cogent reasons was made out by the respondents to sustain the rejection, it was contended.
24. To supplement the above contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the authorities are bound to record reasons, the learned Senior Counsel relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. N.P. Damania and Others [(1995) Supp(1) SCC 1] and Union of India and another v. Bhaskarendu Datta Majumdar [(2010) 9 SCC 38)]. It was contended that both the decisions reiterated that even the Appointments Committee of Cabinet was bound to support its decision with reasons. In Dhamania's case, ACC took a decision contrary to the advise given by the 20 UPSC. When challenged, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed that notwithstanding the fact that it was open to the ACC, which alone was the appointing authority and not the Minister concerned, as urged by the respondent, to differ from the recommendations of the UPSC, it must give reasons for so differing to ward off any allegations of arbitrariness. These reasons should be discernible from the file. Supreme Court held that though files were perused, it did not find any recorded reason for differing from the recommendations of the UPSC. Accordingly, Supreme Court held that though reasons were to be recorded on file, they were not required to be communicated. When challenged, it was always open to the authorities concerned, to produce the necessary records before the Court to sustain the stand of the decision making authority, it was held. This decision was followed with approval in Bhaskarendu Dutta Majumdar's case (supra).
25. Coming to the question whether impugned orders are sustainable, essentially, the orders under challenge before this Tribunal are Annexures A17, A19 and A30. In Annexures A17 and A19, the authority had specifically stated the reason why it did not accede to the request of the applicant. It relied on the Annexure A3 DoPT O.M which stipulated that every spell should not exceed five years at a time. This was again reiterated in Annexure A19. Hence, both the orders reveal the specific reason which 21 prompted the authorities to decline the request. Hence the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents did not apply its mind and did not assign any reason for its decision, is not sustainable. Consequently, the merits of the personal difficulties projected by the applicant for seeking extension of the inter-cadre deputation is immaterial.
26. On the other hand, Annexure A30 was passed by the authority on the premise that the deputation of the applicant from Manipur Cadre to Kerala had ended on 19.08.2022 and hence the subject proposal of the Ministry was returned. The authority has given its reason for returning the proposal. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the authority did not take into consideration the fact that the applicant was continuing on the basis of a status quo order granted by this Tribunal. It is factually correct that the applicant was protected by an interim order passed by this Tribunal. That protection was only with respect to the maintenance of status quo, so that, notwithstanding the expiry of deputation period by passage of time, both sides were directed to maintain status quo, so that the protection was against her repatriation to parent cadre. The factual situation that her deputation period had expired by efflux of time alone was conveyed in Annexure A30. Hence, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the 22 applicant that the impugned order did not convey any reason is factually incorrect and is liable to be rejected.
27. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, (2000 KHC 1196) to contend that the basic principle underlying deputation was that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department, to serve in his substantial position therein at the instance of either the department and there was no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation not to get absorbed in the Department to which he had gone on deputation. There cannot be any dispute regarding this proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
28. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further relied on the decisions reported in P. Mahendran and Others v. State of Karnataka [(1990) KHC 724], A.A. Calton v. The Director of Education and another, [(1983) KHC 440], Stalin v. State of Kerala [(2006) KHC 170] and Radhakrishnan P.A and Others v. State of Kerala [(2009) 3 KHC 938] to contend that the case of the applicant could not be determined by a guideline, which came into force subsequent to her request for extension of deputation. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that A29 23 guidelines that came into force after the application was submitted and decided, cannot be relied on for deciding the correctness of orders impugned in this proceeding. We find that the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is misplaced, since Annexure A29 produced by the applicant, was not relied on by the authority, while passing the impugned orders. It was relied on by the SCGSC only to bring home the factual position that the guidelines have since been changed and that the flexibility provided earlier to utilize the deputation periods in two or more spells, and the limit prescribed in Annexure A3 were no longer in force.
29. The learned Senior Counsel also invited our attention to Annexure A33 and Annexure A34 orders of the Hon'ble High Court in OP (CAT) No. 75 of 2024. Another IFS officer had approached this Tribunal assailing the order declining to extend the inter-cadre deputation by filing OP No. 245 of 2023. The OA was dismissed on merits after detailed hearing. The order was impugned in OP (CAT) No. 75 of 2024. The Hon'ble High Court by Annexure A33 order granted an interim order of status quo as regards continuation of the petitioner therein on deputation. The order was extended for a further period by Annexure A34 order. It emerges that facts involved and grounds taken therein are factually different.
24
30. Having considered the entire facts in the above perspective, we find that Annexures A17, A19 and A30 are beyond the pale of challenge. We find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders. The Original Application fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. No costs.
(Dated 23rd of August, 2024)
ANINDO MAJUMDAR JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
'SA'
25
List of Annexures in O.A No.180/423/2022 (Applicant's Annexures) Annexure A1- True copy of the office memorandum bearing NO. 13017/16/2003-AIS(I) dated 11.7.2006.
Annexure A2- True copy of the letter dated 31.7.2017 bearing No. 37/4/2014-EO(SM-I) issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A3- True copy of the office memorandum No. 13017/16/2003-AIS.I dated 5.9.2017 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.
Annexure A4- True copy of the letter dated 8.6.2020 bearing No. 37/4/2014-EO(SM-I) issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A5- True copy of the notification dated 4.8.2010 issued by the st 1 respondent with respect to the grant of inter cadre deputation of Smt. Deepa D. Nair IFS (MT:2001) for a period of five years.
Annexure A6- True copy of the letter dated 21.7.2015 issued by the 4th respondent with respect to the extension of inter cadre deputation of Smt. Deepa D. Nair IFS (MT:2001) for a period of two years.
Annexure A7- True copy of the letter dated 12.6.2017 issued by the 4th respondent with respect to the extension of inter cadre deputation of Smt. Deepa D. Nair IFS (MT:2001) for a period of two years.
Annexure A8- True copy of the representation dated 30.12.2021 submitted by the application before the 3rd respondent. Annexure A9- True copy of the letter dated 18.2.2022 issued by the 5th respondent addressed to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A10- True copy of the letter dated 16.2.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personal Division), Government of Manipur, addressed to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A11- True copy of the medical certificate dated 29.7.2022 issued by the Dr. Yamuna Keeneri (Reg. No. 27745) Consultant in respiratory medicine, General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram to the 26 applicant.
Annexure A12- True copy of the pulmonary function report dated 14.7.2018 issued to the applicant by the Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Sahrudaya Hospital, Thathampally, Alappuzha. Annexure A13- True copy of the prescription of medicines advised by the doctor concerned at Sahrudaya Hospital, Alappuzha.
Annexure A14- True copy of the establishment order No. 12/2021 dated 6.8.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Preventing), evidencing that the husband of the applicant, Sri S. Anil Kumar is currently posted in Tamil Nadu. Annexure A15- True copy of the letter dated 29.7.2022 issued by the Principal, L'ecole Chempaka International School, Trivandrum certifying that the applicant's son is studying in Grade III in the said school. Annexure A16- True copy of the letter dated 29.7.2022 issued by the Principal, L'ecole Chempaka International School, Trivandrum certifying that the daughter of the applicant is studying in Grade I in the said school. Annexure A17- True copy of the letter dated 17.3.2022 bearing No. 17016/03/2010-IFS-I issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A18- True copy of the representation dated 30.3.2022 submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent. Annexure A19- True copy of the letter dated 7.4.2022 bearing NO. 17016/03/2021-IFS-I issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicant. Annexure A20- True copy of the representation dated 11.4.2022 submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent. Annexure A21- True copy of the order No. 37/35/2015-EO(SM-I)(Pt.I) dated 24.5.2021 issued DoPT Government of India.
Annexure A22- True copy of the order No. 37/04/2016-EO(SM-I) dated 8.10.2021 issued by DoPT Government of India.
27Annexure A23- True copy of the reply dated 24.5.2022 issued by the Under Secretary/Chief Public Information Officer in the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India accompanied by the enclosures attached to the said reply.
Annexure A24- True copy of the office memorandum bearing No. 13017/16/2003-AIS(I) dated 8.11.2004 issued by the 1st respondent. Annexure A25- True copy of the office memorandum bearing No. 13017/16/2003-AIS(I) dated 31.10.2005 issued by the 1st respondent. Annexure A26- True copy of the judgment dated 6.1.2022 in OP (CAT) No. 1 of 2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Annexure A27- True copy of the web page downloaded from the official website of the Indian Forest Service, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, updated on 22.7.2022. Annexure A28- True copy of the interim order dated 27.5.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 10239/2022 (S-CAT). Annexure A29- True copy of the office memorandum bearing OM No. 13017/28/2022-AIS.I dated 15.11.2022 issued by the 1st respondent (Department of Personnel and Training) Annexure A30- True copy of the office memorandum bearing No. 37/4/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 6.3.2023 issued by the 4th respondent. Annexure A31- True copy of the order No. 37/1/2015-EO(SM-1) dated 18.2.2023 issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A32- True copy of the medical certificate dated 24.3.2024 issued by Dr. Yamuna Keeneri to the applicant.
Respondents' Annexures Annexure R-1- True copy of letter dated 8.6.2020.
Annexure R-2- True copy of OM dated 5.9.2017.
Annexure R-3- True copy of representation dated 11.4.2022. 28 Annexure R-4- True copy of letter dated 12.5.2022.
Annexure R-5- True copy of letter dated 17.6.2022.
Annexure R-6- True copy of letter dated 21.6.2022.
Annexure R-7- True copy of OM dated 14.8.2013.
Annexure R-8- True copy of the OM No. 13017/28/2022-AIS.I issued by the Department of Personnel and Training dated 15.11.2022.
********