Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Pradeep P vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 2 March, 2022
10A.No.17o/00086/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00086/2022
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF MARCH, 2022
cORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SURESH KUMAR MONGA,
MEMBER (J)
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
(On video conference from Central
Bench, Chandigarh)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
from Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
(On video conference
Bench, Bangalore)
Si Pradeep P, 1.A.S
Son of T Prabhakar
Aged about 40 years
(MH:RR:2009)
Junior Administrative Grade,
(Maharashtra Cadre)
On Inter-Cadre Deputation
To the State of Karnataka
Presently Working as Commissioner, Education,
Technical
Department of Collegiate and
Government of Karnataka
Office of the Commissioner,
Technical Education,
Department of Collegiate and
Unnatha Shikshna Soudha,
560001
Seshadri Road Bengaluru
Residing at
604, HRC Ananya, Railway Track Road,
Near Judicial Layout Underpass,
Judicial Layout, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru - 560065. Applicant
Jayanth Dev Kumar,
Senior Advocate with Shri.
(By Shri P.S. Rajagopal,
Advocate-through video conference)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
to
Represented by its Secretary
Personnel and Training
The Department of
Public Grievances and Pensions
Ministry of Personnel,
North Block, New Delhi 110001
-
2. Establishment Officer&
20A.No.170/00086/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
Additional Secretary of the Government of India
Department of Personnel and Training
&The Secretary to the Appointments
Committee of the Cabinet
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
3. State of Maharashtra
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary
To the General Administration Department
Mantralaya
Mumbai- 400032.
4. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary
To the Government,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
VidhanaSoudha
Dr.AmbedkarVeedhi
Bengaluru- 560 001....Respondents
and 2 and
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondents No.1
None for Respondents No.3 and 4- through video conference)
ORDER(ORAL)
PER: SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
1. The applicant herein is a 2009 Batch Maharashtra Cadre' officer of the Indian Administrative Service. For some personal reasons, he had applied in the year 2018. His for Inter State deputation to State of Karnataka Maharashtra and 'no earnestly considered by the State of a request was certificate' was issued on 12.10.2018. The State of Karnataka objection and issued the 'no also gave its consent for the applicant's deputation 19.11.2018.
objection certificate' on taking note of the communication
2. The Central Government while both the State Governments concurred with thee proposal and by given by applicant to State of way of an order dated 11.02.2019 deputed the Karnataka for a period of three years.
30ANo.170/00086/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Pursuant thereto, the applicant was relieved from State of Maharashtra and he gave his joining report in the State of Karnataka on 07 03 2019. His period of deputation is to expire on 06.03.2022.
The applicant, however, submitted a representation on 30.04.2021 seeking extension of his deputation for a period of another 2 years. The said representation was considered by the Government of Maharashtra and by way of a communication dated 03.06.2021, it was conveyed to the Central Government that the State Government has no objection if the applicant's tenure of inter-cadre deputation is extended for a further period of two years. The Government of Karnataka also agreed to the proposal for extension of applicant's deputation period.
Pursuant to aforesaid communication dated 03.06.2021 issued by
5. the Government of Maharashtra, the matter was dealt with by the Central Government and by way of a letter dated 09.11.2021, a request was made to the Government of Karnataka to convey its consent/comments along with the vigilance clearance in respect of the applicant's case for extension of his tenure of deputation. The letter dated 09.11.2021 was duly replied by the Government of Karnataka by way of communication dated 22.12.2021 stating therein that there are no departmental enquiry/ judicial proceedings pending or contemplated against the applicant during the tenure of his inter cadre deputation and hence his case is also clear from vigilance angle. The State Government also gave its 'no objection certificate' for extension of applicant's tenure of inter cadre deputation.
40A.No.170/00086/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Grievance of the applicant herein is that his deputation period is due atv t o expire on 06.03.2022 and uptil now the Central Government has not taken any decision into the matter.
7. Shri. PS Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel representing the applicant submitted that the applicant has a right to have considered his representation for extension of deputation period in terms of Rule 6 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 read with Clause vi of the Government of India's Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2004.
8. Pursuant notices issued by this Tribunal, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the State of Karnataka and the State of Maharashtra. Shri M. V. Rao, learned Senior Panel Counsel, who represents the Union of India before this Tribunal was directed by this Tribunal on 17.02.2022 to seek instructions from Respondents No.1 and 2 and file the reply statement on their behalf.
matter ordered Looking towards the urgency in the matter, the was 9 to be listed on 25.02.2022 with a direction to Respondents No.1 and 2 to file their reply statement, a day prior to the date fixed with an advance copy to learned counsel for the applicant.
10. However, on 25.02.2022,Shri M. V. Rao, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 had shown his inability by stating that despite his best efforts having been made, he could not get any response from Respondents No.1 and 2 to file the reply statement on their behalf.
11. On the request of Shri Rao, the matter was stil adjoumed to 02.03.2022 ie. today enabling the Respondents No.1 and 2 to file their sOA.No.170/00086/2022/CAT/BANGALORE reply statement. Despite opportunity having been given, no reply statement has been fled by Respondents No.1 and 2.
12. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the applicant had submitted his representation about 10 months ago on 30.04.2021 seeking extension of his deputation period on personal grounds. The said request was earnestly considered by the Government of Maharashtra and the matter was forwarded to Central Government on 03.06.2021. It appears from the pleadings available before us that on 09.11.2021 the Central Government had taken up the matter with the Government of Karnataka i.e. after expiry of a period of about 05 months.
13. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Karnataka acted promptly and by way of a communication dated 22.12.2021, it was conveyed to the Central Government that there are no departmental enquiryljudicial proceedings pending against the applicant during his tenure of deputation and he is clear from vigilance angle. The State Government has also conveyed its no objection for extension of his tenure of deputation beyond 06.03.2022. for another period of 02 years
4. The subject of inter-state cadre deputation is governed by the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 which have been promulgated by the Central Government while deriving its powers from sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951. Rule 6 (1) of the said rules makes a provision that a cadre officer, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned and the Central Government can be deputed for service under the Central Government or another State Government.
60A.No.170/00086/2022/CAT/BANGALORE The Government of India in order to give effect to 1954 Rules' has
15. also issued an Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2004. A perusal of Clause request for extension of vi of the said Office Memorandum reveals that a State deputation period can be entertained only if it is forwarded by the Government concerned with cogent reasons and at least 3 months prior to expiry of the deputation period. It has further been stipulated in the said concerned Cadre Controlling Clause that it will be mandatory for the period of 03 months from the Authority to issue orders either way, within a date of receipt of the request for extension of deputation period.
vi of the aforesaid Office
16. In our opinion, the mandate of Clause Government in its Memorandum has not been followed by the Central before us that the letter and spirit. It is clear from the records available 30.04.2021 was dealt with by the applicant's representation dated forwarded to the Central Government of Maharashtra and the same was Thereafter, it was incumbent upon the Central Government on 03.06.2021.
Government to have acted upon the said representation promptly and the period of three months requisite orders should have been issued within the 08.11.2004.
as mandated in Clause vi of the Office Memorandum dated to do so, compelling the The Central Government, however, has failed under Section 19 of the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
An identical situation arose before the Ermakulam Bench of this
17. Tribunal in the matter of Anoop K R vls Union of India and Others (OA No. 180/00694/2021 decided on 23.12.2021) wherein while dealing with the Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2004, a direction was issued to the Central Government to consider and dispose of the officers request for 7OANo.170/00086/2022/CAT/BANGALORE extension of deputation period in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations within period of 01 month. Since, no interim protection was granted by this Tribunal while disposing of the said Original Application, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala was invoked by the applicant therein by way of filing a writ petition bearing number OP (CAT) No.1 of 2022.
The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala while dealing with the matter
18. Rules' and extensively in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the 1954 Clause vi of the Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2004, disposed of the writ petition by way of an order dated 06.01.2022 wherein it has been held that it will be mandatory for the Cadre Controlling Authority to issue orders either way within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the 23.12.2021 request for extension of deputation period. The order dated passed by the Enakulam Bench of this Tribunal was, therefore, further modified with a direction to the Central Government that until a final decision is taken by the competent authority, the applicant therein shall be allowed to continue on deputation basis in the State of Kerala where he was deputed from the State of Rajasthan.
19. In view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the 1954 Rules' read with Clause vi of the Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2004 and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, we have no hesitation to hold that the applicant's representation was required to be decided mandatorily by the Central Government within a period of three months.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed with a direction to Central Government to decide the applicant's representation dated 80A.No.170/00086/2022/CAT/BANGALORE 30.04.2021 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the 1954 Rules 08.11.2004. The read with Clause vi of the Office Memorandum dated whole exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 04 weeks from the certified copy of this order. So long as the applicant's date of receipt of a not Central Government, he shall representation remains pending with the be displaced from his present place of posting.
orders so as to costs.
21.Ordered accordingly. However, there shall be no (RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (SURESH KUMAR MONGA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER () k