Deputationist

2025 PLC(CS) 459 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 4(2)DeputationistOut of cadre absorption from Federal entity to Provincial Management ServiceDeputation and extension in period thereof in violation of the Deputation PolicyDeputation not a vested right

Petitioner having his substantive post of Assistant Manager Technical in Pakistan Ordinance Factory, Wah Cantt and also not being a civil servant claimed his out of cadre absorption in Provincial Management Service (PMS)

Validity

Under R.4(2) of the Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007, there is no scope for absorption of employees of Federal Autonomous Bodies in the Provincial Services

Petitioner not being a civil servant and employee of a factory was not even eligible to have been posted at the relevant time on deputation in the Provincial Government

Extension in the period of deputation above the maximum period of five years had been provided from time to time without adhering to the Deputation Policy

Petitioner was holding a substantive post in his parent department and the period of deputation spent in the province was unprecedented and was a question mark on the authorities, who allowed such extension in deputation from time to time

Deputationist could not remain on deputation for an indefinite period

Deputationist had no vested right to complete the deputation period and the borrowing department had sole discretion to decide fate of the deputationist and could repatriate him at any time to the parent department

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstance.

2023 PLC(CS) 949 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

DeputationistSpecial allowance of one month's pay admissible to regular employeesWhether deputationists were also entitled to such special allowance

Held, that petitioners were not the regular employees of the National Highway and Motorways Police and they only served as deputationists on different posts at different intervals

Terms and conditions of service of officials transferred to National Highway and Motorway Police on deputation had been settled vide an office memorandum

At the time of their deputation, the petitioners were duly informed about the terms and conditions of service being deputationist but they never raised any objection at that time

Although in the said office memorandum, the officials on deputation had been held entitled to several allowances but it was nowhere mentioned that the special allowance of one month's pay would also be admissible to them

High Court had rightly observed that both categories of regular and deputationist employees were distinct and the petitioners did not enjoy the status of regular employees

Neither any legal right was available with the petitioners to claim the benefit of special allowance in question nor the question of infringement of any of their vested rights arose

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

2023 PLC(CS) 374 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.8Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997,Rr. 23 & 25(1)(iv)Civil serviceDeputationistScopeAbsorption in serviceSelection by Governing BodySelection Committee absence of

Petitioner was appointed by Governing Body but authorities after 19 years had set aside his appointment as the same was not done by Selection Committee and he was repatriated to his parent department

Validity

Held, there was no permanent employee in Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) in year 1998, who could have been made member of Selection Committee to consider petitioner for absorption

Such was ample justification to petitioner's case for absorption to be placed before the Governing Body of WWF which was superior to Selection Committee

Absorption of petitioner as Assistant Director (BS-17) in WWF without recommendation of any Selection Committee was no fault of the petitioner

It was not for the petitioner to have constituted Selection Committee but the senior management of WWF

Without constitution of Selection Committee, case of petitioner for absorption should not have been placed before Governing Body but it was done by the management of WWF

Omission to comply with the requirement of R.25(1)(iv)Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997, in the process for absorption of petitioner was entirely attributable to the management of WWF and not the petitioner

High Court set aside order passed by authorities and remanded the matter to Federal Government for decision afresh

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2022 SCMR 2047 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

DeputationistSpecial allowance of one month's pay admissible to regular employeesWhether deputationists were also entitled to such special allowance

Held, that petitioners were not the regular employees of the National Highway and Motorways Police and they only served as deputationists on different posts at different intervals

Terms and conditions of service of officials transferred to National Highway and Motorway Police on deputation had been settled vide an office memorandum

At the time of their deputation, the petitioners were duly informed about the terms and conditions of service being deputationist but they never raised any objection at that time

Although in the said office memorandum, the officials on deputation had been held entitled to several allowances but it was nowhere mentioned that the special allowance of one month's pay would also be admissible to them

High Court had rightly observed that both categories of regular and deputationist employees were distinct and the petitioners did not enjoy the status of regular employees

Neither any legal right was available with the petitioners to claim the benefit of special allowance in question nor the question of infringement of any of their vested rights arose

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

2022 PLC(CS) 1209 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.14Officers of the BoardDeputationistScope

Bare reading of S.14(3) of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, indicates that when a civil servant is appointed on deputation as an officer of the Board by virtue of being a civil servant, he ceases to be the officer of the Board if he retires from the civil service

Right to continue for the period of deputation is irrelevant and the moment he retires from service, his appointment as officer of the Board also comes to an end

No distinction in Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, as to appointment by way of deputation on the basis of transfer or as a result of any competitive selection process.

2020 PLC(CS) 13 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.13(1)(i)Frequency Allocation Board Employees (Service) Regulations, 2014, Regln. 181(4)Frequency Allocation Board Employees Service Regulations, 2007, Para. 5.21Fundamental Rule No. 114DeputationistTerms and conditions ofScopePetitioner, a government servant was aggrieved of compulsory retirement without payment of salary and other benefits

Plea raised by authorities was that petitioner was posted to other departments and could not claim salary from parent department for duration of deputation

Validity

Provisions of Fundamental Rule No. 114 made it imperative for pay of deputationist to be fixed by lending and borrowing departments

If terms and conditions of deputation of employee were not settled between borrowing and lending department, salary of deputationist etc., payable to him by his parent department could not be varied to his detriment

Under no circumstances could a deputationist be made to suffer for omissions of his parent and lending department to settle terms of his deputation

High Court declared that from time when petitioner joined duties as deputationist at borrowing department and when petitioner was repatriated by borrowing department, differential in amount actually paid to petitioner by borrowing department and amount under pay certificate of petitioner along with permissible increase during such period be paid by borrowing department

High Court further declared that for period when petitioner reported for duty at borrowing department and after said department issued his repatriation notification and when called upon lending department to take petitioner on its strength, salary of petitioner etc., would be paid by borrowing department in amount as payable to an officer of lending department

High Court directed that for period when lending department first called to take petitioner on its strength and when major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on petitioner, salary of petitioner etc., would be paid by lending department in amount as payable to an officer his grade

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2018 PLC(CS) 1248 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

DeputationistScopeDeputationist did not have any right to remain on the post for ever or for a stipulated period

Deputationist could be ordered to be repatriated to the parent department at any time without assigning any reason.

2018 PLC(CS) 1248 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.3 & 3-B, [as amended by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, (XXII of 2013)], Ss.3 & 3-BGeneral Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.21District and Sessions JudgeAppointment as Chairman, Service TribunalRepatriation before completion of tenure periodAppointment on ex-cadre postsDeputationistScope

Petitioner was appointed as Chairman, Service Tribunal for a period of three years or till attaining the age of sixty years

Provincial Government with the consultation of the Chief Justice of the High Court repatriated the services of petitioner-employee

Employee filed reference against the repatriation order but same was rejected by the competent authority

Validity

Chief Justice of the High Court had been given the meaningful consultative powers in appointment of Members and Chairman of Service Tribunal

Appointments on ex-cadre posts were considered to be on deputation as period was required to be specified for such posting

Chairman, Service Tribunal was nominated by the Chief Justice for his appointment for specific period of three years or until he attained the age of sixty years whichever was earlier

Officer while posting under the Provincial Government remained under the administrative powers of Chief Justice

Authority to appoint and to hold the post of Chairman, Service Tribunal would remain with the Chief Justice of the High Court

Where authority had the power to appoint an individual then it had the power to remove also

Deputationist was at the consent of lending and borrowing departments and incumbent of the post had no right whatsoever to ask for completion of the tenure or have any right to remain as such

Lending department could require the services of its officer by repatriating him and similar would be the case with borrowing department

Borrowing department could relieve or spare the deputationist as no longer required

Mere posting of Chairman, Service Tribunal for three years could not be considered sacrosanct and same was subject to modification/curtailment at the exigencies of service

Deputationist did not have any right to remain on the post for ever or for a stipulated period

Deputationist could be ordered to be repatriated to the parent department at any time without assigning any reason

High Court was not obliged to assign any reason for repatriation of employee

Administration Committee of High Court had rightly regretted the reference of petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS)N 32 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

DeputationistAppointment ofScope

Deputationist could only be appointed when there was no suitable, eligible, competent and fit person within the whole-time salaried officers

Appointment of deputationist could not be declared unlawful and borrowing department could obtain the service of an employee serving in another department provided the lending department had consented to it.

2017 PLC(CS)N 32 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 15 & Ch. XXVIIIBoard of Intermediate and Secondary EducationController of examinationAppointment ofPromotionVested rightDeputationistAppointment ofScope

Petitioner being employee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education had called in question the appointment of deputationist as Controller of Examination

Contention of petitioner-employee was that he was fit and eligible for consideration for promotion as Controller of Examination and appointment of respondent was illegal, unlawful, void ab-initio and of no legal effect

Validity

Petitioner-employee had not claimed his promotion rather had asked for considering him for promotion which was right of every eligible, competent and fit employee to ask for

Whenever rules and regulations for promotion had been violated then it would become the vested right of an employee to call in question the same

Respondent had been appointed as Controller of Examination on deputation

Petitioner or other employees were neither considered nor any reason for not appointing them had been mentioned in the impugned notification

Directions of High Court had been violated by the authorities

Impugned notification was based on mala fide and same was unlawful

Deputationist could only be appointed when there was no suitable, eligible, competent and fit person within the whole time salaried officers of the department

Constant and consecutive appointment of Controller of Examination in the Board seemed to be arbitrary

Appointment of deputationist in another department would adversely affect the employees of said department

Such practice of appointment on deputation would be against justice, equity and good governance

Discretion should be exercised in a judicial manner

Appointment of deputationist could not be declared unlawful and borrowing department could obtain the service of an employee serving in another department provided the lending department had consented to it

Proper procedure for hiring a person for deputation had not been adopted in the present case

Competent authority had acted arbitrarily while appointing outsider against the post to be filled in from amongst the whole time salaried officers of the Education Board

Impugned notification was set aside by High Court

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS) 191 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

R. 20-AOffice memorandum No. 1(28)/75-D.II/R.1 dated 18-02-1987DeputationistRepatriation ofScopeEmployee impugned his repatriation order through constitutional petition which was dismissedValidityDeputationist could not remain on deputation for indefinite period or stipulated periodDeputation could be terminated at any stage during prescribed period of deputation

Normal period for deputation would be three years which was extendable for two years with the prior approval of competent authority

Competent authority could repatriate the employee at any stage to his parent department without assigning any reason

Employee could not have any grievance against his repatriation by the borrowing department to his parent department

Parent department of the employee had not been abolished and employee should comply with the impugned notification of repatriation without fail

Employee had been correctly repatriated to his parent department

Matters with regard to deputation and repatriation were related to the terms and conditions of service and constitutional petition was not maintainable before the High Court

No infirmity was pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge in Chamber

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 GBLR 82 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 10Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60DeputationistPosting and transferAbsorption of deputationist

Services of employee who was serving as Inspector (BPS-16) in Airport Security Force were placed at disposal of the Gilgit-Baltistan Police as Deputy Superintendent of Police on deputation for a period of three years on standard terms and conditions

Said deputationist, after thirty nine (39) days, was absorbed in Gilgit-Baltistan Police

Validity

According to Service Rules, a deputationist could not be absorbed during deputation period

Deputationist, could not be given another deputation before expiry of the first deputation period

Government would refrain from issuing posting orders of any non-Cadre Officer to a Cadre post by transfer under S.10 of the Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011, nor would it depute by transfer any officer from occupational group in the Government, except in exigency, unless the deputationist would meet the criteria of matching qualifications, eligibility and experience to the proposed post

Absorption of employee within thirty nine (39) days after assuming charge on deputation, would not only be unconstitutional, without undertaking competitive and transparent process, but would also deprive the seniority and progression of career of the meritorious Police Inspectors/petitioners

Illegal absorption, was not a perpetual right of the employee gained on the basis of an illegal order

Absorption of employee, was illegal, without lawful authority and ultra vires of the service laws and rules

Impugned orders were set aside by Supreme Appellate Court

Employee was directed to report to his parent department/Airport Security Force

Appeal was accepted.

2016 PLC(CS) 861 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 4Seniority in serviceDeputationist

Seniority of persons on deputation was to be reckoned from the date of their regular appointment/permanent absorption in the transferee Group or Department and not from their posting or transfer (date) or any earlier date.

2016 PLC(CS) 875 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Repatriation of employee to his parent departmentScopeVested rightDeputationist"Aggrieved person"ScopeEmployee had no vested right to claim deputation or it was not necessary that he should complete deputation periodBorrowing and lending departments had to consider their need with regard to repatriation of services of deputationist

Department could not be compelled by the deputationist to retain the post on deputation for the entire period of deputation or for indefinite period

No vested right would accrue to the deputationist to continue with the post of deputation rather it was discretion of the competent authority

Deputationist could not be treated as "aggrieved person" provided he was placed on same grade and status in borrowing cadre which he was availing before his status as deputationist

Petitioner could not question the order of repatriation as no right would vest in deputationist to serve in borrowing department

Employee had not been deprived of his right by repatriation

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be exercised in such matter

Order of repatriation was not amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petitioner had no bona fide cause of action

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PLC(CS) 879 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Deputationist

No vested right could be claimed by the deputationist for ever or for stipulated period and deputationist could be repatriated to the parent department at any time without assigning any reason.