Absorption of deputationist

2022 PLC(CS) 73 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

DeputationAbsorption of deputationistScope

Absorption is not vested right of an employee and the employer has right as well as authority to terminate the deputation period or repatriate the employee back to his/her parent department.

2021 PLC(CS) 163 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4(2)Absorption of deputationist

Constable in Provincial Traffic Police ('the petitioner') sent to Federal Investigation Agency ('FIA') on deputation and ultimately absorbed as employee of FIA

Legality

Internal inquiry into absorption of petitioner into FIA recorded findings against the petitioner to the effect that he had been absorbed in violation of Standing Order No.21/84 as well as in violation of FIA Personnel Policy framed in exercise of powers under S. 4(2) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974

Service history of petitioner showed that he was initially employed as a Constable/Computer Operator in the Provincial Traffic Police; he manipulated his successive promotions in a short span of time; he managed his promotions firstly as Head Constable, thereafter as ASI on officiating basis and subsequently as Sub-Inspector/Computer Operator

All such promotions happened within a span of few months which was not only unprecedented but quite surprising considering the mode and manner in which promotions were required to be given in terms of the rules and regulations of the department

Further, on transfer to FIA on deputation basis, the petitioner managed his permanent absorption within a period of one year and 28 days, which was a classical example of clever manipulation of the system through devious means and influence mongering

Considering the conduct and the manner in which the petitioner had quite cleverly manipulated the system for his personal benefits in violation of all applicable regulations, rules and laws, no discretionary and equitable relief could be granted to him

Petitioner's case was also squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752)

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

2020 SCMR 2166 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4(2)Absorption of deputationist

Constable in Provincial Traffic Police ('the petitioner')sent to Federal Investigation Agency ('FIA') on deputation and ultimately absorbed as employee of FIA

Legality

Internal inquiry into absorption of petitioner into FIA recorded findings against the petitioner to the effect that he had been absorbed in violation of Standing Order No.21/84 as well as in violation of FIA Personnel Policy framed in exercise of powers under S. 4(2) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974

Service history of petitioner showed that he was initially employed as a Constable/Computer Operator in the Provincial Traffic Police; he manipulated his successive promotions in a short span of time; he managed his promotions firstly as Head Constable, thereafter as ASI on officiating basis and subsequently as Sub-Inspector/Computer Operator

All such promotions happened within a span of few months which was not only unprecedented but quite surprising considering the mode and manner in which promotions were required to be given in terms of the rules and regulations of the department

Further, on transfer to FIA on deputation basis, the petitioner managed his permanent absorption within a period of one year and 28 days, which was a classical example of clever manipulation of the system through devious means and influence mongering

Considering the conduct and the manner in which the petitioner had quite cleverly manipulated the system for his personal benefits in violation of all applicable regulations, rules and laws, no discretionary and equitable relief could be granted to him

Petitioner's case was also squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752)

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

2020 PLC(CS) 1411 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Appointment of Junior School Teacher (BPS-9)Appointment on the basis of deputation as Senior Translator (BPS-16) in Provincial Assembly of SindhAbsorption of deputationistScopeEmployee was repatriated to his parent department in compliance with the order of Supreme Court

Employee filed appeal against the said order which was accepted by the Authority and he was absorbed in the borrowing department

Contention of petitioner was that respondent had been absorbed in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court

Validity

Junior School Teacher (BPS-9) of education department could not be absorbed against the post of Senior Translator (BPS-16) in the Provincial Assembly which was a different cadre

Employee was repatriated to his parent department in compliance with the order of Supreme Court

Respondent had no right to file appeal against his absorption and his absorption was illegal and void ab initio

Even respondent was not eligible for the post of Senior Translator

Impugned notification for absorption of respondent was without lawful authority and of no legal effects, which was set aside

Authorities were directed to implement the law laid down by the Supreme Court in letter and spirit

Employee was to be repatriated to his parent department immediately and he would be entitled for the salary if he was never absorbed in the Provincial Assembly

If batch mates of respondent had been promoted then he would be entitled to the same treatment with seniority and other benefits in accordance with law

Government was directed to recover differential in the pay scales of BPS-9 and BPS-16 and deposit the same in government exchequer

High Court issued show-cause notices to the private/official respondents as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them

Constitutional petition was allowed, 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.