Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.
i.) He refuted the submission of Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the OM dated 17.06.2010 did not apply in view of Clause 6 of the subsequent DoPT OM dated 17.02.2016 by which it was modified and which contained a provision for premature repatriation. He contended that on the date of taking the petitioner on deputation, the UIDAI was not a statutory authority, as, the Act, 2016 had not been promulgated nor had the Regulations, 2020 been made under the said Act. The UIDAI was at the relevant time functioning in pursuance to a notification of the Planning Commission/NITI Aayog dated 28.01.2009 as it's attached office and thereafter, it functioned in pursuance to the notification of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India dated 12.07.2016, accordingly. Therefore, in these circumstances, the DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010 was clearly applicable and in fact it was specifically mentioned in the OM dated 10.10.2013 by which applications were invited from eligible persons desirous of coming on deputation to UIDAI and in pursuance to which the petitioner also applied, that the terms and conditions of deputation would be governed by the DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010. Furthermore, even in the order of deputation of the petitioner dated 05.02.2014, it was clearly mentioned that the terms and conditions of his deputation during his tenure of deputation at UIDAI would be governed by the DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010. Therefore, reliance placed upon Clause 6 of the subsequent DoPT OM dated 17.02.2016 by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to contend that the OM dated 17.06.2010 was not applicable, as, the Central Government was neither the lending department nor the borrowing department, was not tenable, as, at the relevant time UIDAI was functioning as an attached office of the Planning Commission and, thereafter, of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology of the Government of India. He contended that the petitioner having come on deputation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the OM dated 10.10.2013 and as the order of deputation dated 05.02.2014 clearly mentioned about the applicability of the DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010, therefore, it was not open for him to resile from the said condition and take a contrary stand after having taken the benefit of same for 6 years. He also submitted that extension of deputation of the petitioner after the third year had been made with the specific condition that the said deputation shall be governed by the aforesaid DoPT OM, which the petitioner accepted without demurr. The last extension dated 13.02.2020 refers to the DoPT OM dated 23.02.2017 which in turn relies upon earlier DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010 and 17.02.2016.

.

UIDAI became a statutory authority and an autonomous body w.e.f 12.07.2016 when it was notified as such under Section 11 of the Act, 2016. Prior to 12.07.2016, UIDAI functioned as an attached office of the Planning Commission having been established as such by the notification dated 28.01.2009 and thereafter it functioned accordingly as an attached office of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology of the Government of India in view of notification dated 12.09.2015 by which the allocation of business rules were revised by the Government of India. Thus, till 11.07.2016 UIDAI functioned as part of the Planning Commission/Department of Electronics and Information Technology of the Government of India and Rules/OM of DoPT, Government of India regarding deputation etc. including the DoPT OM dated 17.06.2010 and 17.02.2016 were applicable to UIDAI. The Act, 2016 had not even been promulgated by then, therefore, the status of UIDAI was that of an attached office in the aforesaid Commission/Department under the Government of India.

.

On perusal of the Act, 2016, the Court finds that there is no specific provision of recruitment and appointment including by a way of deputation instead there is a general provision contained in Section 21 as amended by the Act, 2019 which speaks of determination/specification of terms and conditions of officers and employees of UIDAI by regulations to be made by the UIDAI. Section 54 of the Act also empowers the UIDAI to frame such regulations. As already stated, Regulations, 2020 made by UIDAI were notified on 21.02.2020. Regulation 11 thereof deals with deputation and reads as under:-

(3) All appointments made on deputation in the Authority under these regulations shall initially be for a period not exceeding five years which may be extended for such period and in such manner as prescribed by the Authority from time to time."

.

As per Sub-regulation (3) initially all appointments made on deputation are required to be made for a period not exceeding 5 years which may be extended for such period and in such manner as prescribed by the authority i.e. UIDAI from time to time. No such decision of the "authority" as defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act, 2016 i.e. UIDAI, has been placed before the Court prescribing any period beyond 5 years up to which the deputation under Regulation 2020 could be extended nor the manner of such extension as having been prescribed by UIDAI has been placed before the Court. It being a specific power of regulation of the terms and conditions of service vested with the UIDAI, it has to be performed by it and none else. If the argument of the petitioner's Counsel that DoPT OM's dated 17.06.2010 and 17.02.2016 became inapplicable w.e.f. 21.02.2020, in view of Regulations, 2020, then, the logical corrollary of it would be that he would have to be repatriated, as his term of 5 years expired in February, 2019 and no such decision of the authority as defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act, 2016 has been brought on record prescribing the permissible period of extension of deputation beyond 5 years and the manner of doing it under Regulation 11 (3) of the Regulations, 2020. Thus, the extension of petitioner's deputation vide order dated 13.02.2020 wherein an OM dated 23.02.2017 has been referred which according to the opposite party is in continuation of the OM's dated 17.06.2010 and 17.02.2016 will itself fall in jeopardy being contrary to Regulations, 2020.