Deputation service does not create a right to absorption or cadre promotion; statutory eligibility rules continue to govern.
Deputation to a borrowing department does not confer a vested right to absorption, continuation in the higher post, or promotion in the parent cadre. Ad hoc or officiating promotion earned during deputation cannot displace the governing service rules, and seniority alone cannot override prescribed qualification or examination requirements. The officer remains attached to the parent cadre and reverts on expiry of deputation. Separately, where qualifying service was completed, the Court permitted eligible officers to exercise voluntary retirement from the deputation post within the time fixed, counting qualifying service up to the date of judgment.
Issues: (i) Whether police officers on deputation to the Criminal Investigation Department could claim absorption, continuation in higher posts, or promotion in their parent cadre on the basis of ad hoc promotions earned during deputation. (ii) Whether respondents who had completed the requisite qualifying service could be permitted to seek voluntary retirement while continuing in the deputation post.
Issue (i): Whether police officers on deputation to the Criminal Investigation Department could claim absorption, continuation in higher posts, or promotion in their parent cadre on the basis of ad hoc promotions earned during deputation.
Analysis: Deputation was held to mean service outside the parent cadre on a temporary basis, with reversion to the parent department on expiry. The relevant service rules preserved the officer's original cadre position and allowed only officiating promotion in the borrowing department. On return, a deputationist could not insist on retaining the higher post held during deputation, nor could ad hoc promotion in the borrowing department override the statutory eligibility conditions for promotion in the parent cadre. Seniority alone could not replace the prescribed qualification or examination requirements, and no right to absorption existed in the Criminal Investigation Department, which had no separate cadre up to the rank concerned.
Conclusion: The claim to absorption, retention of higher rank, or promotion in the parent department on the basis of deputation service was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether respondents who had completed the requisite qualifying service could be permitted to seek voluntary retirement while continuing in the deputation post.
Analysis: The Court accepted that the respondents had remained in the Criminal Investigation Department for many years under a situation created by the litigation and interim orders. It held that the option of voluntary retirement could be confined to those who had completed the prescribed qualifying service in the parent department and in deputation combined, and the period of qualifying service would be counted up to the date of judgment. The option was to be exercised within the time fixed by the Court.
Conclusion: The respondents who had completed 20 years of qualifying service were entitled to opt for voluntary retirement from the ranks held in the Criminal Investigation Department.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's directions on promotion, absorption, and seniority succeeded, but the limited relief permitting eligible respondents to choose voluntary retirement was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A deputationist has no vested right to absorption or to retain the higher post held on deputation in the parent cadre, and promotion can be claimed only in accordance with the governing statutory eligibility conditions; seniority cannot override those conditions.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
