Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr Rahul Chawla vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 30 October, 2025
CWP-31845-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.119 CWP-31845-2025
Date of Decision: 30.10.2025
Dr. Rahul Chawla .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana.
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the memo dated 17.10.2025, Annexure P-7, whereby the petitioner's request for deputation as Joint Director beyond 31.10.2025 has been declined, repatriating him to his parent department/BPS Govt. Medical College for Women for assuming duties as Professor of Forensic Medicine. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to re-consider the petitioner's extension of deputation in the light of his dire medical needs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while working as Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine in the respondent Medical College, the petitioner was deputed as Joint Director in the Department of Medical Education and Research for a period of one year, vide office order dated 21.08.2020, Annexure P-2. He, accordingly, joined on 24.08.2020, and has been continuing there ever since as his deputation has been extended by the Government from time to time. It has further been contended that the petitioner's request for extension has now been declined vide the impugned memo without taking into account his medical condition. He is statedly 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 12:22:35 ::: CWP-31845-2025 2 suffering from "Chronic Renal Failure with Diabetes Mellitus" as per chronic disease certificate issued by the office of Civil Surgeon, Panchkula, dated 01.01.2025, Annexure P-9, which is valid for a period of five years. Considering this chronic disease, he is entitled to extension of deputation which will allow him to stay at Panchkula. This is an urgent necessity as he would not be able to get the required specialised medical attention in the Medical College, which is at a distance of about two hundred kilometers.
3. Learned State counsel, however, contends that the petitioner has been taken on deputation in the Department and cannot be allowed to work beyond his tenure. As per Rule 137(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 (for short, 'the 2016 Rules'), the term of foreign service or deputation in a Government Department is maximum three years, extendable up to five years. The Rule reads as under:
137. Term of foreign service or deputation.--
(1) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the foreign service or deputation in an Organization/Department under Haryana Government or any other Government shall be for a period upto three years at a time. Where it is considered necessary in public interest to extend the period of deputation or foreign service beyond three years or five years, prior approval of the Administrative Department and Finance Department, shall respectively be obtained well in time giving full justification in this regard.
3.1. She further contends that the impugned order itself shows concurrence of the Finance Department to extend the petitioner's deputation is only up to 31.10.2025. He has already crossed the maximum permissible period of deputation and further extension is not permissible as per the rules, nor is it desirable as his parent department/Medical College has also asked for his repatriation.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 12:22:35 ::: CWP-31845-2025 3
4. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.
5. As apparent on record, the petitioner is working in the Department on deputation from 24.08.2020. He was initially deputed for a period of one year and continued working for over five years due to periodic extensions granted by the Government. Rule 137(1) of the 2016 Rules prescribes that an employee can be taken on deputation in a government department for a period of three years, extendable up to five years with prior approval of the Administrative as well as Finance Departments. Therefore, the impugned order declining the extension of deputation to the petitioner beyond 31.10.2025, is in consonance with the rules and cannot be taken exception to. He has no indefeasible right to remain on deputation. Besides, his medical condition is also not a justification, since there is no provision under the rules which entitles an employee to seek extension of deputation beyond the maximum prescribed period on the basis of chronic disease he/she is suffering from. Further, it can also not be the case that the petitioner will not be able to get medical treatment for his chronic ailment, as he is being repatriated to Government Medical College, his parent department, where he holds the position of Professor.
6. In view thereof, finding no merit in the petition, it stands dismissed in limine.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
30.10.2025
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 12:22:35 :::