Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court the matter was listed before the Tribunal on 10.08.2023 and thereafter on various dates when the parties filed their additional affidavit, counter affidavit etc. We heard learned counsel for the parties finally on 26.09.2023 and with their assistance we have perused the pleadings available on record and the matter was reserved for orders.

4. The undisputed facts are that the applicant was initially appointed as CT/GD under respondent no.2, on 12.08.2003. Subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable (Min) through LDCE on 17.09.2007. The applicant was appointed as Care Taker under respondent no.3 on deputation basis w.e.f. 24.11.2017 initially for one year, w.e.f. 24.11.2007 to 23.11.2018. The period was extended for two years w.e.f. 24.11.2018 to 23.11.2020. The applicant has submitted his willingness for permanent absorption as Care Taker under respondent no.3. However, the respondent no.2 did not issue the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) in this regard on account of non-completion of mandatory 18 years of service on the relevant date and such decision was communicated by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 under intimation to respondent no.3. Again on receipt of request from respondent no.3 for issuance of NOC for considering permanent absorption of the applicant under respondent no.3, respondent no.2 considered and did not agree to issue NOC on the ground that the applicant has not completed the requisite 18 years of service, which is an essential service criteria for CAPFs as per MHA Deputation Policy Guidelines dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure R-3 to the short reply of respondent no.3). However, the applicant was granted extension of deputation for 4th year keeping in view the willingness of the applicant, the NOC issued by respondent nos.1&2 and consideration made by respondent no.3. Regarding extension of applicant's tenure for 5th year, starting from 23.11.2021 respondent no.2 vide their communication dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure R-2), respondent no.2 requested respondent no.3 to repatriate the applicant. It has also been stated in such communication dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure R-2 with the counter reply of respondent no.3) that the applicant has been found blameworthy for false claim of LTC bills and against him disciplinary proceeding is pending with further direction to the applicant to report to FHQ, SSB, New Delhi for timely completion of disciplinary proceedings. Of course, vide their communication dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure R-3 of counter reply of respondent no.3), informed the respondent no.3 that extension of deputation/absorption of the applicant has been considered by the respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 has agreed to issue NOC for extension of deputation tenure for 5th year, i.e., upto 23.11.2022 subject to concurrence of respondent no.1 in terms of Policy guidelines dated 22.11.2016. Subsequently, various communications were sent by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 at the request of the applicant for grant of NOC for extension of tenure for 5th year, i.e., upto 23.11.2022, subject to concurrence of respondent no.1 in terms of the deputation policy guidelines dated 22.11.2016. The applicant vide his application dated 31.10.2022 requested for extension of his tenure for 6th year on the ground that concurrence of the competent authority for his permanent absorption was awaited from respondent no.1 and accordingly the respondent no.3 sent a communication dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure R-4 with the counter affidavit of respondent no.3) to respondent no.2 with a request therein to grant NOC for extension of 6th year deputation period beyond 23.11.2022 in respect of the applicant. Respondent no.2 vide its communication dated 13.01.2023 conveyed to respondent no.3 that the DG, SSB has not agreed to issue NOC as the applicant was involved in fraudulent claim of LTC and disciplinary proceeding is pending against him with the request to respondent no.3 to repatriate the applicant with direction to him to report at FHQ, SSB, New Delhi forthwith as his deputation has already expired on 23.11.2022. The respondent no.3 pursuant to the communication dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure R-5 with the counter reply of respondent no.3) of respondent no.2 repatriated the applicant.

5.1 The learned senior advocate for the applicant has further argued that with regard to the alleged fraudulent LTC claim for the block year 2014-15 the respondent no.2 has already passed a final order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure PR-2 of the additional affidavit of the applicant) and thus it is erroneous at the end of the respondent nos.1 & 2 that disciplinary proceeding is still pending against the applicant.

5.2 The learned senior advocate for the applicant has further argued that the competent authority for grant of NOC for deputation, extension of deputation and or for absorption of the applicant under respondent no.3 is respondent no.2 and the policy guidelines of respondent no.1 dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure R-7) only provides consultation with respondent no.1, i.e., MHA and once the respondent no.2 has given its NOC in respect of extension and or absorption of the applicant under respondent no.3 it is immaterial as to whether the respondent no.1 has agreed to the proposal and or the NOC given by respondent no.2 in this regard. He has referred to para-18 of the said guidelines dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure R-7 with the short reply of respondent no.2).

15. From the facts on record, it is evident that there is a statutory provision for appointment to the post of Care Taker by way of deputation or absorption. It is not in dispute that in view of the willingness of the applicant, the candidature of the applicant was considered by the respondents on various occasions for extension of his tenure and also for his permanent absorption as Care Taker under respondent no.3. However, it is also not under dispute that for continuation on deputation and or for absorption, willingness of the employee, NOC from the parent department and NOC from the borrowing department are essential. From the facts precisely recorded hereinabove, it is amply clear that at the request of the applicant the respondent no.3 has taken up the matter with respondent nos.1 & 2 for grant of NOC for continuation of the applicant on deputation and or for absorption under it. However, at no point of time, the respondent nos.1 & 2 have issued a categorical NOC in this regard in favour of the applicant. Either the NOC has been refused say for non-compliance of the requisite 18 years of service, involvement of the applicant in the matter of fraudulent LTC claim, pendency of disciplinary proceeding in this regard and or if at all the NOC was issued by respondent no.2 in this regard, on which much emphasis has been given on behalf of the applicant in the pleadings as well as during oral submissions, such NOC has never been unconditional, specific and categorical. This had always carried the rider that the same has been issued "subject to concurrence of respondent no.1." It is admitted case that at no point of time the respondent no.1 has accorded and issued NOC for permanent absorption of the applicant under respondent no.3 despite the proposal and or recommendation of respondent no.2 and or of respondent no.3. Even during the pendency of the present litigation what the respondent nos.2 & 3 have accorded and issued is "NOC for grant of ex-post fact extension of deputation tenure beyond 5th year period w.e.f. 24.11.2022 to 10.02.2023, (i.e., upto the date of repatriation of the applicant).

22. We have carefully gone through the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of A.L. Kalra (supra), para-19 of which has been reproduced hereinabove, nothing has been brought on record to enable us to come to the conclusion that the similarly placed persons have been treated differently. Therefore, the question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India does not arise. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the law laid down by their Lordship in A.L. Kalra (supra) as well is of no help to the applicant. We are further supported in this regard in view of the fact that the applicant has made a bald assertion in the pleadings that the respondents no.1 & 2 have accorded and issued NOC for deputation/absorption under different organizations in favour of those similarly persons. Moreover, it is trite law that one is not entitled for negative equality.