Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has declared that the government cannot enforce the deputation of an employee without their explicit consent. This verdict came as the tribunal temporarily suspended an order pertaining to the deputation of an officer.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising M S Latif, Member (J), came in response to a plea filed by a senior prosecuting officer, Khurshid Ahmad Khan (APP JMIC Court, Kupwara), who had been assigned to Ladakh for a two-year term. Khan contested his deputation primarily on the grounds that it contravened Government Order No 1458-JK (GAD) of 2022, issued on December 1, 2022, which outlined general principles for employee deputation.

Additionally, Khan argued that his duty to care for his ailing mother, as the sole male member of his family, made his deputation untenable. His counsel, Sehreen Zehra, cited the Supreme Court ruling in the case of ‘Sarita Singh versus Shree Infosoft Private Limited’, which unequivocally stated that deputation requires the consent of the individual being deputed.

In response, Deputy Advocate General Bikram Deep Singh and Government Advocate Waseem Gul, representing the government, asserted that Khan did not possess the right to choose his place of posting. They maintained that “it is always for the competent authority to take a decision in the matter in the exigency of service.”

The tribunal, echoing the Supreme Court's stance held that “preservation of family life is an incident of Article 21 and the State while formulating a policy for its employees has to give consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy.”

The tribunal also stressed that deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement among the lending employer, borrowing employer, and the employee. However, in the present case the tribunal observed that the order indicated a glaring omission: the respondents failed to seek any consent from the petitioner regarding his deputation.

Consequently, the tribunal directed the authorities to review Khan's representation, considering both his circumstances and the legal precedents cited. The court mandated a decision on the representation within 15 days of receiving the order. Until then, the tribunal ordered the suspension of the deputation order related to Khan.

In its concluding remarks, the tribunal urged the authorities to act promptly and judiciously in addressing Khan's representation.

 

Cause Title: Khurshid Ahmad Khan v Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [O.A. No.195/2024]