STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus INDER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 03-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
INDER SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 3, 1997 
[SUJATAV.MANOHARANDD.P. WADHWA,JJ.) 
B 
Service law: 
Deputation-Meaning of-Service outside the cadre or the Department 
on temporary basis-On expiry of the deputation period the employee has to C 
come back to his parent Department on the same position/rank unless he has 
earned promotion in his parent Department as per rule. 
Deputation-Repatriation from-Employees served on deputation for 
very long period and during deputation earned promotions on ad hoc basis-
On repatriation, employees have to work on the lower post in their parent D 
department-If they retired on deputation they would earn pension on the 
basis of their holding high ranks, though the pension being paid by the 
parent Department-Longer period of deputation created a false hope in the 
employees that they would, continue there till retirement-Held, the 
deputation could not be without consent of the employees, they would, 
therefore, know their rights and privileges in the deputation post-Hence, 
repatriation from deputation cannot be resisted by the employees-However, 
equity permits that such deputationists who had completed 20 years on 
deputation could seek voluntary retirement. 
E 
The respondents were enrolled as Constables in the Police Department F 
and later deputed to Crime Investigation Department (CID) of the State Police. 
They served for long years in the CID and during the course of their deputation 
they earned promotion on ad-hoc basis and some of them reached the rank of 
Sub-Inspector. They were sought to be repatriated to their parent departments 
and they were to go back to their parent departments as Constables or Head 
Constables even though during deputation period they earned any promotions G 
in their parent department. The respondents filed writ petition challenging 
the order of repatriation. High court held that the order of repatriation was 
legal and could not be set aside. It, however, directed that (1) if the respondent 
sought voluntary retirement from the posts they were holding in CID, the 
order of repatriation would not come in their way and their retirement be H 
425 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A considered on the basis of the posts they were holding in CID; and (2) the 
seniority of the respondents in their parent department be determined by 
giving them the benefit of service they rendered in CID. Hence, the present 
appeals by way of special leave. 
B 
c 
D· 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The 'Deputation' is deputing or transferring an employee to 
a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary 
basis. After the expiry of the period of deputation, the employee has to come 
back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the 
meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the 
recruitment rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of the 
employment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or 
post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation 
without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know 
his rights and privileges in the deputation post. Hence, repatriation from 
deputation cannot be resisted by the employees. [439-F-G) 
D.M Bharti v. L.M Sud & Ors., (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 162; Ratilal B. 
Soni & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1990) 1 SCR 414; Puranjit Singh 
v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors., [1994) Supp. 3 SCC 471 and R. 
Prabha Devi & Ors. v. Government of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of 
Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms & Ors., (19881 3 SCR 147, 
E relied on. 
T. Shantharam v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 538 and 
Narayan Yeshwant Gore v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 470, 
distinguished. 
p 
Narender Chadha & Ors. v. Union of India, [1986) 2 SCC 157, referred 
to. 
2. The Constables on deputation to CID have reached higher ranks and 
retired from CID in those ranks. A hope, though not true, is instilled in 
officers like the respondents that they would continue in the CID holding high 
G ranks till th~ age ofsuperannuation. The conduct of the appellants in suddenly 
asking the respondents to go back to their parent departments when they have 
put in best years of their life in CID wo11ld appear to be rather unjust. It would 
have been more appropriate for the appellant to repatriate the respondent a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.