UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus S.N. MAITY & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 06-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 580 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
V. 
S.N. MAITY & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.5983 of 2007) 
JANUARY 06, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Appointment on deputation - Pre-mature 
re;:::itriation - Respondent appointed on deputation basis for 
C 
a period of five years or until further orders, whichever was 
earlier - After serving for one year, repatriated to his parent 
department - Challenge to - Order of repatriation upheld by 
the tribunal, however, High Court set aside the same and 
issued direction to reinstate the respondent to the said post 
D 
-
On appeal, held: The scrutiny of the notification of 
appointment makes it clear that it is a tenure posting, fixed 
for five years unless it is curtailed - However, this curtailment 
cannot be done in an arbitrary or capricious manner - There 
has to have some rationale - Merely because the words 'until 
E 
further orders' are used, it would not confer allowance on the 
employer to act with caprice - Thus, the order passed by the 
High Court upheld - However, the period has been over since 
last six years and the respondent has come back to his parent 
department, to subserve the cause of justice, respondent to 
F 
be paid the entire salary that was payable to him for the 
deputation post for the balance period with interest@ 9% p.a 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is not a case of simple transfer. It is not 
G 
a situation where one can say that it is a transfer on 
deputation as against an equivalent post from one cadre 
to another or one department to another. It is not a 
deputation from a Government Department to a 
H 
580 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. S.N. MAITY & ANR. 
581 
Government Corporation or one Government to the other. 
A 
There is no cavil over the fact that the post falls in a 
different category and the 1st respondent had gone 
through the whole gamut of selection. On a studied 
scrutiny, the notification of appointment makes it 
absolutely clear that it is a tenure posting and the fixed s 
tenure is five years unless it is curtailed. But, a pregnant 
one, this curtailment cannot be done in an arbitrary or 
capricious manner. There has to have some rationale. 
Merely because the words 'until further orders' are used, 
it would not confer allowance on the employer to act with c 
caprice. [Para 16] [591-G-H; 592-A-B] 
1.2. The letter as regards the order of repatriation is 
absolutely silent and it has curtailed the tenure of posting 
without any justifiable reason. Regard being had to the 
nature of appointment, that is, tenure appointment, it really 
D 
cannot withstand close scrutiny. Therefore, the judgment 
passed by the High Court lancinating the said order cannot 
really be found fault with. Though the reasoning of the 
High Court for axing the order of repatriation is accepted, 
yet at this distance of time, it would be difficult to give effect 
E 
to the direction for reinstatement in the post of CGPDTM. 
The 1st respondent was appointed on 29.7.2003. The 
period has been over since last six years. There had been 
an order of status quo by this Court on 01.11.2006. The 1st 
respondent has come back to his parent Department and 
F -
working in the post of Scientist-G. The appellant should 
not suffer the loss of salary, but if direction is issued for 
his reinstatement as the High Court has done, it would 
create an anomalous situation. It would be not apt at this 
juncture and, therefore, the cause of justice would be best G 
subserved if he is allowed to get the entire salary that was 
payable to him f:or the post of CGPDTM for the balance 
period, that is, five years minus the period he had actually 
served and drawn salary. The balance amount shall be 
H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
paid with interest @ 9% p.a. within three months hence. 
8 
The submission that it was as tenure posting and, 
therefore, he is entitled to get the equivalent pay which he 
was holding as a tenure-post holder, cannot be accepted. 
[Paras 18, 19, 22, 23, 24] [593-D-F; 597-A-E; 598-B] 
Debesh Chandra Das V. Union of India 1970 (1) 
SCR 220: (1969) 2 SCC 158; Ashok Kumar Ratila/ Patel V. 
Union of India and Another 2012 (6) SCR 545: (2012) 7 SCC 
757; Sri Justice S.K. Ray V. State of Orissa and others 2003 
C (1) SCR 434: (2003) 4 SCC 21; Union of India & Others V. 
Bhanwar Lal Mundan 2013 (8) SCR 559: (2013) 12 SCC 433 
- referred to. 
D 
E 
Case Law Reference : 
1970 (1) SCR 220 
Referred to 

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