Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) against a judgment of the Madras High Court which upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing NHAI to count the deputation service of Respondent No.1, G. Athipathi, for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical). The respondent initially worked as an Assistant Engineer with the Tamil Nadu Government and was appointed on deputation as Manager (Technical) with NHAI from 21.05.2008 to 13.06.2014. After repatriation, he applied for direct recruitment to the same post, was selected, and joined on 26.08.2015. NHAI issued a circular and the Executive Committee decided as a one-time measure to treat deputation service as regular service for promotion. However, the Screening Committee declared the respondent ineligible due to the gap between repatriation and re-joining. The CAT allowed his application, directing NHAI to count his deputation service and promote him with effect from 27.10.2017. The High Court dismissed NHAI's writ petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the one-time measure applied to the respondent, the gap was not his fault, and the direction to promote was valid. The Court noted that the respondent had already been promoted pursuant to the CAT order and found no reason to interfere.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Counting of Deputation Service - National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996 - The issue was whether deputation service rendered by an employee before his direct recruitment could be counted as regular service for promotion, despite a gap due to repatriation. The Court held that the one-time measure adopted by the Executive Committee allowed counting of deputation service as regular service, and the gap was not attributable to the employee's fault. (Paras 4-9, 16-18) B) Service Law - Eligibility - Gap in Service - National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996 - The Court considered whether a gap of over one year between repatriation and re-joining on direct recruitment disqualified the employee. It held that the gap was due to administrative formalities and the employee was not at fault; thus, the deputation service could be counted. (Paras 10-12, 16-18) C) Service Law - Promotion - Selection Process - National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996 - The Court examined whether the CAT could direct promotion without a selection process. It held that since the employee was eligible and the one-time measure applied, the direction to promote was valid, but the actual promotion would be subject to selection. (Paras 14, 18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether deputation service rendered by an employee prior to his direct recruitment can be counted as regular service for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post, despite a gap in service due to repatriation to parent department.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the CAT and High Court orders. It held that the one-time measure applied to the respondent, the gap was not attributable to him, and the direction to promote was valid. The Court noted that the respondent had already been promoted and found no reason to interfere.
Law Points
- Deputation service counted as regular service for promotion
- Gap in service due to repatriation not a bar
- One-time measure for deputationists
- Eligibility criteria for promotion
- Interpretation of Recruitment Regulations
