Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the reversion of an employee from a temporary post in a borrowing department to his parent department. The appellant was initially appointed as a Junior Statistical Supervisor in the Department of Statistics. When a temporary post of Senior Statistical Assistant fell vacant in the Directorate of Special Employment and Planning, he applied through his parent department and was appointed to the temporary post by order dated 12.7.1973, joining on 1.9.1973. The post was made permanent on 1.1.1978. However, when the gradation list of Senior Statistical Assistants was prepared on 16.8.1977, the appellant's name was omitted. He made a representation on 26.9.1977. On 28.9.1977, the fifth respondent, Arun Prasad Mandal, was promoted initially as Senior Statistical Assistant and later as Senior Research Assistant. The appellant was reverted to his parent department by order dated 23.2.1979. He challenged the reversion before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 754/79, which dismissed his writ petition on 13.4.1979. After reversion, he was promoted as Senior Statistical Assistant in his parent department. The State filed a counter affidavit stating that the appellant's appointment was on deputation, his lien as Junior Statistical Supervisor in the parent Statistical Department continued, and the fifth respondent was a permanent incumbent in the Directorate of Special Employment and Planning. The Supreme Court noted that no rejoinder or unimpeachable documentary evidence was filed to contradict the State's averments. The Court accepted the uncontroverted position that the appellant was a deputationist. It relied on the settled law that an employee on temporary promotion continues to hold lien in his substantive post until duly terminated and cannot hold two substantive posts simultaneously. Since the appellant was a deputationist, his name was rightly not shown in the seniority list of the borrowing department; he continued to hold lien and seniority as Junior Statistical Supervisor in the parent department. On reversion, he came back to his post and was promoted as Senior Statistical Assistant in his own right. The fifth respondent, being a permanent incumbent, was validly promoted. The Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's order. It further directed that although the appellant had continued to work in the Directorate of Special Employment and Planning pursuant to interim directions, he must be deemed to have continued to hold his lien as Senior Statistical Assistant in the parent Statistical Department and would be entitled to all rights and further promotion there according to rules. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Deputation and Lien - Employee on temporary promotion or deputation continues to hold lien in substantive post until duly terminated - Not mentioned - The appellant was appointed as Senior Statistical Assistant in the Directorate of Special Employment and Planning on a temporary post while his lien as Junior Statistical Supervisor in the parent Statistical Department continued. The Court held that he could not hold two substantive posts simultaneously and his name was rightly excluded from the seniority list of the borrowing department. Held that the appellant remained a deputationist without entitlement to promotion in the borrowing department (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Seniority and Promotion - Deputationist cannot claim promotion in borrowing department - Not mentioned - The fifth respondent was a permanent incumbent in the Directorate of Special Employment and Planning and was promoted as Senior Statistical Assistant and later as Senior Research Assistant. The appellant, being on deputation, had no right to be considered for promotion in that department. The Court found no illegality in the fifth respondent's promotion. Held that promotion in the borrowing department belonged to permanent incumbents, not deputationists (Paras Not mentioned). C) Service Law - Reversion - Reversion of deputationist to parent department is valid - Not mentioned - The appellant was reverted to his parent department by order dated 23.2.1979 and thereafter promoted as Senior Statistical Assistant in his own right. The Court upheld the reversion, noting his lien and seniority were in the parent department. Held that reversion did not violate any legal right of the appellant (Paras Not mentioned). D) Service Law - Rights after reversion - Employee deemed to hold lien in parent department for promotion purposes - Not mentioned - Although the appellant continued working in the Directorate of Special Employment and Planning due to interim directions, the Court directed that he must be deemed to have continued to hold his lien as Senior Statistical Assistant in the parent Statistical Department and would be entitled to all rights and further promotion there according to rules. Held that his substantive rights remained in the parent department (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the promotion of the fifth respondent as Senior Statistical Assistant was valid in law despite the appellant's earlier temporary appointment in the same department, and whether the appellant as a deputationist could claim promotion rights in the borrowing department.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with observations, holding that the appellant was a deputationist and had no right to promotion in the Directorate of Special Employment and Planning. The promotion of the fifth respondent was valid. The appellant was deemed to have continued to hold his lien as Senior Statistical Assistant in the parent Statistical Department and would be entitled to all rights and further promotion there according to rules. No costs.
Law Points
- An employee on temporary promotion or deputation continues to hold lien in substantive post until duly terminated
- cannot hold two substantive posts simultaneously
- deputationist cannot claim seniority or promotion in borrowing department
- promotion in borrowing department belongs to permanent incumbents
- reversion to parent department is valid
- upon reversion employee entitled to rights and further promotion in parent department according to rules
