Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Kalicharan Hembrom vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 8 October, 2025
-1- OA/051/00295/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING, RANCHI
OA/051/00295/2025
With
MA/051/00564/2025
Reserved on : 18.09.2025
Pronounced on: 08.10.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON'LE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
Kalicharan Hembrom, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Majhia
Hembrom, R/o Village - Jojobasa, Hatia, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834003.
........Applicant.
- By Advocate(s) :- Shri Rajiv Sinha
Shri Niraj Kumar
Ms. Shreesha Sinha
-Versus-
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel &
Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, North
Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.
.......Proforma Respondent
2. Deputy Controller and Auditor General (HR), having its office at the
Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Pocket-9, Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-110124.
3. The Assistant Comptroller & Auditor General (N), representing the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India, having office at Pocket-9,
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, new Delhi-110124.
4. Principal Accountant General (Audit) having its office at A.G. Office,
North Office para, Shyamali Colony, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand-
834002.
.......Respondents.
By Advocate(s) :- Shri Pravin Kumar Pandey, ASC for R-1
Shri Rohit Sinha, for R. No. 2 & 4
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=
SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33,
CN=SURYAROOP KABI
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-2- OA/051/00295/2025
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M.:- This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief: -
"(i) To declare the Policy of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) as contained in Circular No. 60-Staff (App)-1/14-2023 dt. 27/01/2025 under the signature of Assistant Comptroller & Auditor General (N-1) concerning repatriation of staff members who are continuing on deputation on spouse ground beyond 7 years, as, ultra vires so far it concerns the deputation of staff on spouse ground, as the same is irrational, not achieving any object as also against the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel and Training dt. 24.11.2022, which is adopted by Respondents and continue to do so, so that the status of women is enhanced in all walks of life including family life. There is no logic to allow the deputation of staff members on spouse ground for only 7 years and not beyond, despite situation remaining unchanged.
(ii) For setting aside the Order as contained in Office Order No. Admin (Audit)-VII-1/885685/2025 dated 21/02/2025 passed by the Office of Principal Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand Ranchi, under the signature of Deputy Accountant General (Admin), whereby and whereunder the petitioner who is currently on deputation on spouse ground is sought to be repatriated in the light of para 2 of Circular No. 60-
Staff (App)-1/14/2023 dt. 27/01/2025."
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the applicant, are as follows:-
(i) The applicant was appointed as an "Auditor' in the Office of Director General of Audit, South Western Railway, Hubali, Karnataka, (hereinafter to be referred as his Parent Office) on 28/01/2011. Thereafter, he was transferred on deputation basis on the Spouse Ground since 26/12/2014 as "Auditor" to the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand, Ranchi, without deputation allowance, which was Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-3- OA/051/00295/2025 extended from time to time on written request application of the applicant by the Competent Authority. Currently the petitioner is on deputation as "Senior Auditor" in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand, Ranchi.
(ii) It is submitted that his wife Smt. Surubali Tudu is an employee of CPWD since 2006. She was transferred to Ranchi (Jharkhand) on 03/08/2009 and is currently posted as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Office of the CE and ED, IIT (ISM), Near P. K. Roy College Dhanbad, 826004 w.e.f 29/11/2024 till date. The applicant also has one daughter (minor) who is 9 years old studying in Standard IV, in Sacred Heart School, at Ranchi.
(iii) The Cadre Controlling Authority in Indian Audit & Accounts Department, i.e., C.A.G, considering the DOPT OM dt.
30/09/2009 containing instructions regarding posting of husband and wife at the same station, also issued Circular dt. 11/02/2015 allowing posting of Staff member on the place of posting of the spouse. It was specifically mentioned therein that deputation in such cases has been permitted keeping in view the instructions of Govt. of India in the matter of posting of husband and wife at the same station.
(iv) It is further submitted by the applicant that the office of the C.A.G issued Circular 06/08/2021 again reiterating the policy of the C.A.G regarding deputation of staff on spouse ground as given in the earlier Circular dt. 11/02/2015 and also showed its anguish upon not considering and rejecting representations of officials of IA&AD on deputation or extension on spouse ground which is leading to disintegration of family as a unit and hardship to officials. Accordingly, the competent authority decided that all such requests should be Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-4- OA/051/00295/2025 forwarded to the HQ Office for taking final decision by the competent authority in case the head of the department finds it difficult to take decision on such request.
(v) It is further stated that the Office Memorandum of DoPT, Government of India dated 24/11/2022 regarding posting of husband and wife at the same station wherein a reference to OM dt. 30/09/2009 has also been mentioned at Para "E". It is mentioned that all Ministries/departments are requested to follow the above instructions including the instructions contained in the OMs strictly and to ensure its wide circulation amongst all the concerned. On perusal of Para "B" of the said OM, it transpires that the principle/concern of the Government of India behind issuing of such guidelines is of utmost importance attached to the enhancement of women's status in all walks of life and to enable them to lead a normal family life as also to ensure the education and welfare of the children. Further the said guidelines and instructions have been made mandatory.
(vi) Office of CAG vide its Circular dt. 09/11/2023 on the Subject Deputation of staff within IA&AD, took the decision as mentioned at Para 3 (c) that cases of deputation of officials on spouse ground/extension in the tenure of the deputation of Officials on spouse ground, where HOD are not able to accept request, shall continue to be sent to Hqr for taking final decision by the competent authority.
(vii) The applicant has mentioned that his deputation on spouse ground was last extended by the Competent Authority vide Letter dated 06/10/2023, w.e.f 26/12/2023 to 25/12/2024 and, thereafter, the applicant again on expiry of the deputation tenure, gave a representation dt. 19/08/2024 for Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-5- OA/051/00295/2025 the extension of the same on spouse ground which was kept pending.
(viii) It is alleged by the applicant that the competent authority vide its Circular dt. 27/01/2025 reviewed the policy regarding Deputation of Staff in IA&AD department and in supersession of Hqr Circular dt. 09/11/2023, revised the guidelines on the subject cited above. Further it held that the staff members who are currently on deputation beyond 7 years shall be allowed to continue their present approved term of deputation for another 6 months from the date of issue of these guidelines to give them and their parent office time for preparation of repatriation.
(ix) The applicant then forwarded his representation dt.
29/01/2025 to Hqr Office regarding deputation on spouse ground through the Principal Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand Ranchi after the issuance of the Circular dt. 27/01/2025. The said representation has been forwarded by the Office of the PAG (Audit) Jharkhand under the signature of Dy. Accountant General (Admin) vide letter dt. 03/02/2025 to the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor General for consideration in the light of Para No. 4 of Hqr Office Letter dt. 06/08/2021.
(x) While the representation of the applicant is under consideration by the competent authority in the light of the Hqr Office Letter dt. 06.08.2021, the Principal Accountant General issued Office Order dt. 21/02/2025 whereby the applicant was directed to be repatriated from this Office from 04/07/2025. Hence, the instant Original Application.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABIDN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-6- OA/051/00295/2025
3. The respondents no. 2 to 4 have filed counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant was appointed as an Auditor in the office of Director General of Audit, South Western Railway, Hubali, Karnataka on 28.01.2011. He was transferred on deputation basis on the Spousal Ground since 26.12.2014 as Auditor in the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand, Ranchi which was extended from time to time on written request application of the applicant by the competent authority. It is submitted that applicant is now a Senior Auditor on deputation in the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand, Ranchi. It is further contended that the existing guidelines regarding deputation were reviewed by the Department as the extension of deputation term of officials without any time limit was resulting in many staff remaining on deputation within IA & AD for decades denying the chances to other needy officials, thus defeating the meaning of deputation and therefore the department issued fresh guidelines vide letter dated 27.01.2025. The revised deputation policy has only limited tenure of deputation including spouse ground up to maximum period of seven years. According to the respondents, the same is neither rigid nor arbitrary but is in line with extant guidelines of DOPT on deputation.
It is submitted that the provisions of the revised policy, such as limiting deputation tenure to seven years and introducing a mandatory three-year cooling off period aims to prevent monopolization of specific posts and promote equitable distribution Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-7- OA/051/00295/2025 of opportunities among staff members. As per the orders of Headquarters issued vide letter dated 27.01.2025 the officials on deputation beyond 7 years were allowed to continue their present approved term of deputation for six months, i.e. up to 26.07.2025 to give them and their parent office the time for preparation of repatriation. Accordingly, office order dated 21.02.2025 was issued to relieve the applicant from this office on 04.07.2025 to join his parent office but the same was extended upto 25.07.2025 vide order dated 13.06.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant has challenged the relieving order citing different OMs of DoP&T and Headquarters' office relating to posting on spouse ground in same station. Referring to Para B of the OM dated 24.11.2022 with regard to posting of husband and wife at the same station, it is submitted that the cadre controlling authority should strive to post the employee at the station of the spouse and in case of inability to do so, specific reasons may be communicated to the employee.
According to the respondents, the above guidelines were not intended to impose an absolute or mandatory requirement without any time limit for deputation cases involving spouses under different cadre controlling authorities. The respondents have denied the contention of the applicant that these provisions create a universal right or strict obligation in such cases. Stressing the point that the impugned policy dated 27.01.2025 and order dated 21.02.2025 does Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-8- OA/051/00295/2025 not violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder and denied the contention of the respondents no. 2 to 4 in their written statement while reiterating the averments as made in the OA. It is further stated that the DoPT guidelines are issued in consonance with Article 15(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such the impugned policy (Annexure A-9) is against the constitutional guarantee. The applicant has also referred to the self-
explanatory letter issued by CAG dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure R/1) whereby the deputation of Senior Audit Officers (SAO) and Assistant Audit Officers (AAO) in Headquarter office have been exempted from the implementation of the impugned policy dated 27.01.2025 till further orders. The CAG has further issued a letter dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure R/2) exempting the Central Training Institutes also from revised deputation policy dated 27.01.2025 till further orders and as such the said policy dated 27.01.2025 is discriminatory and violative of Article14 of Constitution of India.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record carefully. Learned counsel for the parties during hearing mainly argued on the basis of their respective pleadings.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABIDN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-9- OA/051/00295/2025
6. At the outset, we note that this Tribunal vide order dated 20.06.2025 passed in MA No. 355 of 2025 (filed by the applicant) rejected the prayer of interim relief seeking stay of the implementation of the repatriation order of applicant dated 21.02.2025. For proper adjudication of the instant case, it would be better to reproduce the sum and substance of this detailed order dated 20.06.2025 as under:-
This MA No. 355 of 2025 has been filed In OA No. 295/2025 for grant of stay on the implementation of impugned order as contained in Office Order no. Admin (Audit)-VII-1/885685/2025 dated 21.02.2025 (whereby the petitioner was directed to be repatriated to the Parent Department from the present office) till the pendency of the instant application.
The counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant's wife is an employee of CPWD, and therefore the office memorandum issued by the DoPT on the Subject: Posting of husband and wife at the same station is applicable to him in the following manner.
The relevant para of the guidelines reads as follows:
"(iv) Where the spouse belongs to one Central Service and the other spouse belongs to another Central Service:-
The spouse with the longer service at a station may apply to his/her appropriate cadre controlling authority and the said authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the nearest station where the post exists. In case that authority, after consideration of the request, is not in a position to accede to the request, on the basis of non-availability of vacant post, the spouse with lesser service may apply to the appropriate cadre authority accordingly, and that authority will consider such requests for posting the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the nearest station where the post exists."
He has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022 in the matter of S.K Nausad Rahaman & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. that has observed in the penultimate operative paragraph no. 53 as follows:
"In considering whether any modification of the policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the need for a proportional relationship between the objects of the policy and the means which are adopted to implement it. The policy above all has to fulfil the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-10- OA/051/00295/2025 the values which underlie a decision making process informed by constitutional values. Hence while we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected. The appeals shall be disposed of in the above terms."
The counsel for the applicant has argued that Art. 15(3) of the constitution of India is being violated in the instant case and hence the policy needs to be quashed.
This tribunal had considered the matter in its entirety and come to the following conclusion:
The apex Court has clearly stated in the above para 53 that this task of policy making has to be left within the policy making domain of the executive. The policy should be tested on the anvil of legitimacy, suitability and necessity and there is a requirement of protecting the constitutional values enshrined in Article 14,15,16 and 21.
The said article 15(3) of the constitution of India reads as under:
Art. 15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
The insertion of clause (3) of Article 15 in relation to women is a recognition of the fact that women of this country have long been socially and economically handicapped. As a result, there is need to eliminate this handicap of women by empowering them in a manner that would bring about effective equality between men and women and hence Article 15(3) is placed in Article 15. Its object is to strengthen and improve the status of women.
It is also evident that it expands on the "logic of exception", i.e., the need for examining whether Article 15(3) can be reconciled with its surrounding provisions. In doing so, it entrenches this reasoning into the jurisprudence on Article 15(3) and there is need for harmonious interpretation of Article 14,15,16 and 21.
It is amply proved that the argument of counsel for applicant is fallacious and far-fetched. There is no time limit prescribed for continuation of a person at a particular place on spousal grounds and that does not mean that it will extend to an indefinite period; and this does not restrict the executive from formulating a policy which gives a definite and reasonable time for such posting.The applicant has served for a total period of more than ten years on deputation at Ranchi. Now he is questioning the very policy that he has used for staying at Ranchi on Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-11- OA/051/00295/2025 deputation for more than ten years on the grounds that he is being deprived of the opportunity of staying with his wife.
If he is allowed to continue for an indefinite period to the extent of his whole service tenure then it will mean negation of policy of deputation, denial of similar opportunity to other employees who may also be waiting for their term of being posted on deputation to be with their family members and above all the negation of recruitment rules, which has not been shown to provide recruitment by way of deputation. If he is allowed to continue for the whole service tenure, then it will in effect mean that he is now borne on a cadre to which he was not recruited to, and through this back door method of deputation, he has continued to be a member of that particular cadre.
Moreover, a prior notice and time has been granted to prepare for repatriation to the parent cadre so there is no violation of the principle of natural justice as ample time and opportunity has been granted to the applicant.
On the basis of the reasons cited above this MA for grant of interim relief was found liable to be dismissed and was dismissed accordingly.
7. We also note that the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in WP (C) No. 3501 of 2025 against the above order of this Tribunal dated 20.06.2025 passed in MA No. 355/2025 which was disposed of 23.07.2025 by the Hon'ble High Court with the following observation:-
" 3. Since identical issues are coming up before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 19.08.2025, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction that the petitioner will not be repatriated till 19.08.2025 and if it is not possible to dispose of the said petitions on that date, then endeavour be made to dispose of the same by the next date so fixed by the Tribunal and till that date, the petitioner shall not be repatriated."
The identical issue referred to by the Hon'ble High Court as above relate to the case of one similarly situated person Shri Adwin Vinifred Tirkey who approached the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in WP(C) No. 3494 of 2025 against the order dated 20.06.2025 passed Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-12- OA/051/00295/2025 by this Tribunal in MA No. 354 of 2025 (Arising out of OA No. 289 of 2025) whereby the prayer for interim relief was rejected. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 directed to maintain the status quo upto 19.08.2025 as the next date was fixed on 19.08.2025 while quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Tribunal in MA No. 354/2025 and also requesting the Tribunal to decide the matter on 19.08.2025.
Accordingly, the matter was taken up on 19.08.2025 and with consent of the parties the matter was adjourned to 15.09.2025 as the policy, based on which the repatriation order of the applicant was issued, was said to be under review by the respondent officials.
An order was also passed not to repatriate the applicant till the next date of final hearing.
We also note here that an MA No. 564 of 2025 has also been filed by the applicant on 14.09.2025 for adjournment of the case which has been fixed for final hearing on 15.09.2025 and also for extension of interim order dated 19.08.2025 till further orders as the policy decision dated 27.01.2025 under challenge has been made subject of review and is under consideration as will be evident from the letter dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure A/1 to this MA) issued by CAG. However, due to non-availability of the senior counsel for the applicant the matter was adjourned to 17.09.2025 and finally the order was reserved on 18.09.2025.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABIDN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-13- OA/051/00295/2025
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, we come to the following conclusion:-
(i) Since the learned counsel for the applicant is mainly harping on the DoP&T's OMs dated 30.09.2009 and 24.11.2022 on the subject of posting of husband and wife at the same station, we have gone through the OM dated 30.09.2009 carefully and find that in para 5 of the said OM it is mentioned that where the administrative authorities do not accommodate the employees citing administrative reasons, the cadre controlling authority should strive to post the employee at the station of the spouse and in case of inability to do so, specific reasons therefore may be communicated to the employee. In this connection, we note that the words "strive to post the employee at the station of the spouse" is not mandatory in as much as there may be certain administrative reasons and that other employees are waiting for posting since seats are limited. Moreover, we hold that the reasons given by the respondents in para 10 and 12 of their counter affidavit that seven years is quite a reasonable period which aims to prevent monopolization of specific posts and promote equitable distribution of opportunities among staff members are quite convincing and that these guidelines do not, and were not intended to, impose an absolute or mandatory requirement for deputation cases involving spouses under different cadre controlling authorities.
Moreover, the officials have been deputed on personal requests rather than on public interest.
(ii) Secondly, the guidelines of DoP&T dated 30.09.2009 in para 4 (iv) deals with the cases where the spouse belongs to one Central Service and the other spouse belongs to another Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-14- OA/051/00295/2025 Central Service. It is mentioned therein that the spouse with a longer service at a station may apply to his/her appropriate cadre controlling authority and the said authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the nearest station where the post exists. In case that authority, after consideration of the request, is not in a position to accede to the request, on the basis of non- availability of vacant post, the spouse with lesser service may apply to the appropriate cadre authority accordingly, and that authority will consider such requests for posting the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the nearest station where the post exists.
In the instant case, the wife of applicant is Central Government employee (CPWD) and 5 years senior to the applicant having joined in 2006. Therefore, even the wife of applicant has the option.
(iii) We are also in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since 90% employees in Headquarter office are on deputation the transfer will be made in a phased manner but not at once and as such the policy is not discriminatory.
(iv) In view of above, we hold that there is no time limit prescribed for continuation of a person at a particular place on spousal grounds and that does not mean that it will extend to an indefinite period; and this does not restrict the executive from formulating a policy which gives a definite time for such posting. The applicant has served for a total period of more than ten years on deputation at Ranchi. Now he is questioning the very policy that he has used for staying at Ranchi on deputation for more than ten years on the grounds that he is Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-15- OA/051/00295/2025 being deprived of the opportunity of staying with his wife. If he is allowed to continue for an indefinite period to the extent of his whole service tenure then it will mean negation of policy of deputation, denial of similar opportunity to other employees who may also be waiting for their turn of being posted on deputation to be with their family members and above all the negation of recruitment rules, which has not been shown to provide recruitment by way of deputation. If he is allowed to continue for the whole service tenure, then it will in effect mean that he is now borne on a cadre to which he was not recruited to, and through this back door method of deputation, he has continued to be a member of that particular cadre. Moreover, a prior notice and time has been granted to prepare for repatriation to the parent cadre so there is no violation of the principle of natural justice as ample time and opportunity has been granted to the applicant.
(v) We also note the dilatory tactics adopted by the learned counsel for the applicant by filing an MA 564/2025 for continuation of interim relief and adjournment of the case at this stage of final hearing. Since there was clear observation of Hon'ble High Court for hearing the matter urgently such conduct of the learned counsel for the applicant is not appreciated.
The counsel for the respondent has averred during the final hearing that the present stand as on date is to support the departmental policy and oppose the unreasonable prayer of the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant is only harping on the point that the tribunal should not hear this matter as the policy is under review by the respondent department. The stand of Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-16- OA/051/00295/2025 respondent is clear before him during this final hearing. He adopts a recalcitrant approach that it is a futile exercise to finally hear the matter. This is a contemptuous remark as Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand has made it clear vide order dated 23.07.2025 in WP(C) No. 3501 of 2025 that the matter should be heard finally as expeditiously as possible. This has been made clear to both the parties through this tribunal's order passed on different dates as reflected in the order sheet.
9. In view of above discussion, we find that there is no reason for this tribunal to interfere with the policy of the respondent department as it qualifies on the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed by constitutional values. Therefore, this OA is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. MA No. 564/2025 is also dismissed accordingly.
10. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari) Member (A) Member(J) Srk.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABIDN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= SURYAROOP KABI Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 16:38:08+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0