Deputation

Principles relating to duration of term of a deputationist stated.

Principles relating to duration of term of a deputationist stated.

Deputation is an administrative arrangement between the borrowing and lending departments for utilizing the services of an employee in the public interest and exigency of services against a particular post, and such deputationist cannot be allowed to remain on deputation for an indefinite period or stipulated period by his own whims and wishes

Deputationist has no right to remain on a post as such, he can be repatriated at any time without assigning any reason

Mere repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department before the completion of his tenure on deputation was not a vested right to agitate before High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Where recruitment rules do not permit the filling of a post through deputation, sending a civil servant to such post, is heart-burning for servants serving in the organization, on one hand, and on the other, it militates the statutory law of that organization.

Resort to deputation can only be made in extreme cases of exigencies of service on account of non-availability of relevant expertise in the department

Deputationist does not have any vested right to remain posted for an indefinite period

Employer has the right and authority to terminate the deputation period or repatriate the employee back to his parent department, and he can be ordered to be repatriated at any time without assigning any reason.

Held, that it is within the domain of the borrowing department to relieve the civil servant at any time if they are not satisfied with his performance and for relieving such deputationist, no departmental proceedings are required

Even otherwise, the petitioner can only be proceeded departmentally by his parent department, if there is any allegation even in the office of borrowing department against him

Depuationist has no vested right to remain on the post, as deputationist, forever or for the stipulated period, and he can be ordered to be repatriated to the parent department at any time without assigning any reasons

In absence of any specific provision of law, deputationist could not ask to serve total period of deputation and he could be repatriated being a deputationist by competent authority in the interest of exigencies of service as and when so desired and such order of competent authority could not be questioned

Constitutional petition, filed by the deputationist, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Period of deputation could , at the best, be equated to that of an expression of a maximum period; which(period) could be curtailed or extended by competent authority and no legal or vested rights are available to a deputationist to serve his entire period of deputation in borrowing department.

Deputationist can be ordered to be repatriated to his parent department at any time without assigning any reason.

Normal period of deputation is three years and the concerned official has to report back after completion of his term of three years, unless it is further extended for two years

Maximum period of deputation is five years in terms of Serial No.27(iv) of the ESTA Code whereafter both the borrowing and lending organizations have to ensure immediate repatriation of the deputationist

Period of deputation has been defined specifically and after the expiry of term, the deputationist should automatically be relieved from his duty, unless his deputation period has been extended.

Private respondents (respondents) were initially appointed on work charge basis for a period of 88 days by the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) in the year 2010; later on, in the year 2011, their services were regularized; Government of Balochistan through Services and General Administration Department (S&GAD), in the year 2012, had requested the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) for transfer of the services of respondents on deputation, which request was accepted and the services of respondents were placed at the disposal of Government of Balochistan on deputation for a period of 03 years; deputation period was further extended for two years in 2015; deputation and extension of respondents was challenged by the permanent members of the transferee department through a constitutional petition, which was allowed in the year 2015 and the respondents were directed to be repatriated to their parent department; again on the desire of the Chief Minister, Balochistan, the Principal Secretary in the year 2017 requested the ETPB for acquiring the services of respondents on deputation, which request was accepted; respondents joined the Government of Balochistan and upon completion of 02 years of deputation, their services were extended by the Chief Secretary for a further period of 02 years and it was through the present constitutional petition that the services of respondents as deputationist were challenged

Validity

None of the transferee departments had requested for acquiring services of the respondents nor had they showed their exigency or necessity

Selection Authority was under obligation to assess the expertise and experience of the respondents for the posts against which they were intended to be posted on deputation

Respondents were not appointed through the process of selection

Orders passed by official respondents with regard to transfer of respondents on deputation and subsequent extension in their period of deputation were illegal, unlawful and in excess of authority and jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstance and the authorities were directed to repatriate the respondents to their parent department.

Deputation involves appointment/transfer to a department or service different from the one to which a person originally belongs.

Services of the petitioner were transferred from one university to another, in respect whereof the later had duly executed a No Objection Certificate

Transfer notification was also issued

Former university had relieved the petitioner and the later had accepted the transfer

Record demonstrated that the respective parent statutes of the universities contemplated transfer, as employed in the case of petitioner

Relationship between the petitioner and the later university was governed by their terms of such employment and there was no suggestion therein of the relationship ever having been that of deputation

Petitioner had always been treated as a regular employee and no unilateral interpretation of third party correspondence, five years later, could be demonstrated to deprive the petitioner of any right accrued thereto

Impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was restored to service at the later university, along with all back benefits accrued thereto

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Ever since year 2016, when petitioner came on deputation to borrowing department, she had a lien over her post in her parent department

Consequences of her deputation was that neither could the post occupied by her as a deputationist be filled by borrowing department in accordance with applicable recruitment rules, nor did her post in her parent department became vacant, so that the same could be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules of the parent department

As per notification, SRO 872(I)/88 dated 01-10-1998, issued by Ministry of Interior, method of appointment to post of LHV (BPS-09) in health department Islamabad Capital Territory was by transfer and failing that by initial appointment

Appointment by deputationist could not be equated with appointment of transfer

Sanctioned posts could not be kept vacant and ought to be filled only in accordance with the method of appointment prescribed in applicable recruitment rules

High Court deprecated practice of appointing a deputationist or a contract employee against a permanent / sanctioned post without resorting to method of appointment envisaged by recruitment rules

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by authorities

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Competent authority is empowered to repatriate a deputationist as and when exigencies of service require.

Order in respect of a deputationist during the period of his deputation, which may be amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court where bar under Art. 212 is not attracted can be one which is passed by the borrowing agency qua the terms of the deputationist while serving in the borrowing agency and not the order of repatriation, which is prerogative of the parent department/government to pass at any point of time.

Period of deputation can at the best be equated to that of an expression of maximum period which can be curtailed or extended by the Competent Authority and no legal or vested rights whatsoever are available to a deputationist qua tenure of deputation.

No deputationist, by any stretch of imagination and in absence of any specific provision of law, can ask to serve the total period of deputation in the borrowing agency

Such civil servant can be repatriated by the Competent Authority in the interest of exigency of service as and when so desired and such order of the Competent Authority cannot be questioned.

Exclusion clause attached to definition provided in S.2(1)(b) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, reads that civil servant shall not include a person who is working on deputation to the Province from the Federation or any other Province or authority

Conditions laid down in the said exclusion clause are that a person working on deputation in the Province shall not be a civil servant if sent to work on the said post from such Province to the Federation, any other Province or authority.

Appellant assailed an office order issued by the authorities directing her repatriation to the parent department and the dismissal of her constitutional petition

Petitioner claimed the repatriation order to be back dated and pressed into service the doctrine of legitimate expectation to be absorbed as a deputationist

Validity

Single Judge of High Court had noted that the office order was a public document and the assertion that it was back dated was tantamount to raising a factual controversy which could not be resolved by the Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Deputation order itself had clearly stated that the petitioner would not be eligible for absorption in view of her academic credentials

Question of authorities' conduct generating a legitimate expectation of absorption in favour of appellant did not arise

Authorities had made no representation or promise that attracted the principle of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectancy

Deputationist had no vested right to seek absorption in a borrowing department

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed.

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.

Government servant begins to be regarded as a deputationist when he is appointed or transferred through the process of selection to a post in a department or service altogether different from the one to which he permanently belongs

Employee continues to be placed in this category as long as he holds the new post in an officiating or temporary capacity but ceases to be regarded as such either on confirmation in the new post or on reversion to his substantive post.

Period of deputation has to be defined specifically and after expiry of the said period, the official should automatically be relieved from his office duties, unless his period has been extended.

Petitioner assailed notification issued by authorities whereby he, being a deputationist, was repatriated to his parent department

Validity

Normal period of deputation was three years and the concerned official had to report back after completion of his three years period, unless it was extended to further two years and the maximum period was five years, which the petitioner had already completed

No officer could be sent on deputation unless he had completed his three years of service, whereas no detail was provided by the petitioner as to when he was appointed in the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), parent department of petitioner

No record was available to even establish that the petitioner was a permanent employee of NADRA

Transfer and posting of non-cadre to a cadre post was not permissible

No concept of sending a NADRA employee on deputation to any other department existed in the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, except if one was a civil servant

Petitioner's deputation from NADRA to Commissioner Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) Administration was declared to be illegal, in violation of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 and against the concept of exigency of service

Petitioner had no right to claim absorption in ICT Administration as he was an employee of NADRA

Constitutional petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to report his parent department.

Civil Servants Act, 1973, provides different categories, service cadres or posts as prescribed by the recruitment rules of the department and the very concept of cadre provides a safeguard within the service hierarchy so that one kind of officer cannot cross the cadre, disturb the seniority, other rights of the officers in different cadres.

Borrowing department has sole discretion whether to allow a deputationist to continue or to repatriate him at any time to his parent department.

Moment this tripartite agreement is repudiated by means of non-adherence by the departments, the employee has no legally enforceable right to continue to complete the agreed period of his deputation.

Deputation, for an employee, is in the nature of a transfer, rather it is a specie of the wider genus of transfer, albeit outside his existing cadre

Transfer and posting being an incidence of service, it naturally follows that deputation also comes within the realm of conditions of service

Fact that a deputationist is not treated as a civil servant during the period of his deputation makes no difference in this respect

Government servant (including both, civil servant and deputationist), in terms of the governing law, can be ordered to serve at any place by the competent authority and short of allegations of political victimization or unfair labour practice, transfer orders of government servants are, generally and ordinarily, not interfered with because the courts show respect to the exercise of discretion by the competent authorities on the administrative and executive side and also because transfer is an incidence of service

Such judicial treatment of transfer and posting being the norm, the exercise of being sent on deputation or of being withdrawn from such deputation and being surrendered, hardly qualifies as a justiciable matter.

Deputationist does not have any vested right to remain at the post of deputation indefinitely or even for a stipulated period

Deputationist can be repatriated to his parent department at any time

Parent department is free and at liberty to recall its officer as and when exigencies of service so require and, likewise, the borrowing department cannot be held hostage to the period of deputation and can send the deputationist back if the exigencies of service or the public interest so demand or even on administrative grounds.

Dictionary meaning of the term 'deputation' is of no help in understanding the concept of deputation as it exists in the realm of administrative law

Deputation means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department

Such is the act of deputing, transferring or posting an employee to a post outside cadre, to another department on a temporary basis

Deputation can be described as an assignment of an employee of one department or cadre to an organization to another department

Need, of course, is based on exigencies and requirements of public service.

Period of deputation may be terminated and the civil servant serving on deputation may be repatriated, at any time, without any reasons by the lending as well as upon the request of the borrowing authority as and when the exigencies of service so require

Rationale behind this trite and established position of law is not hard to discern

Deputation is made purely on account of administrative exigencies and for the purpose of administrative convenience

As and when a particular department is faced with a shortfall of technically savvy personnel trained in a particular field, it can seek the services of technically qualified persons in that field from some other department of the same government or even from another government of the country

Borrowing department was to decide as to when a deputationist is no more required

Deputationist, therefore, cannot be thrust upon an unwilling department, would compromise the autonomy of the department besides heightening and accentuating a non-existent vested right which is alien to trite and established law.

Petitioner assailed order passed by borrowing authority whereby his deputation period of three years was cut short by six months and he was surrendered to his parent department

Validity

Petitioner could not establish as to what vested or legal right of his was at stake, let alone a basic fundamental right

Clause 17 of the Deputation Policy of the Government of Punjab issued vide Notification No. 6-13/97 dated: 13-08-1998 declared the right of the government to withdraw the deputation order at any time without assigning any reason

Borrowing department had sole discretion whether to allow a deputationist to continue or to repatriate him at any time to his parent department

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Principle underlying deputation is that the deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue on deputation.

Competent authority is empowered to repatriate a deputationist as and when exigencies of service require.

Petitioners assailed notifications issued by authorities repatriating them to their respective departments and sought their absorption in FDE

Validity

Deputationists serving in FDE against posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 and above were not holding appointment on regular basis under Federal Government

Appointment on deputation was on temporary nature

Any officer was said to be on deputation under Civil Service Regulation No.77, 2014 Edition (Revised) when he was detached on special 'temporary duty' for performance of which there was no permanently or temporarily sanctioned appointment

Deputationists appointed to posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 and above in FDE could not be considered for appointment by transfer in FDE as they did not hold an appointment on regular basis under Federal Government

Petitioners deputationists were permanent employees of Provincial Education Departments or they were employees of Education Department of Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan

Procedure for absorption of a deputationist in borrowing department prescribed in Establishment Division's O.M. No.1 (28)/75-D.II, dated 6-3-1975, could not override the method of appointment prescribed in recruitment rules and in particular the procedure for appointment by transfer prescribed in recruitment rules

Deputationist serving in FDE could not be absorbed if he/she did not meet the eligibility criteria for appointment by transfer prescribed in recruitment rules

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Upon completion of maximum permissible deputation period of five years, it is obligatory upon borrowing department to repatriate a deputationist to parent department

Failure on the part of borrowing department to repatriate a deputationist who completes maximum permissible deputation period of five years is an actionable wrong

High Court observed that payment of salary to a deputationist beyond maximum deputation period of five years is an unnecessary and unjustified burden on exchequer and has to be made good from personal coffers of public functionaries in borrowing department who are derelict in their duty in not relieving a deputationist upon completion of the period.

Requisition of services of a government employee on deputation was prerogative of the competent authority.

Deputation has been defined as an administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending authorities for utilizing services of an employee in public interest and exigency of services against a particular post

Deputation was a contract between the borrowing and lending authorities, which was liable to be terminated at any stage during the prescribed period of deputation

Deputationist could not remain on deputation for an indefinite period or stipulated period in accordance with his/her own whims and wishes

Deputationist may not necessarily complete the tenure for which he/she was deputed and such power rested with the competent authority to repatriate a deputationist without assigning any reason

In case of transfer on deputation, no vested right accrued to a deputationist to continue for the period of deputation and a competent authority was empowered to repatriate a deputationist as and when the exigencies of service required the same

Deputationist could not occupy a post reserved for a promotion quota

Reliance on the "wedlock policy" was not a valid plea to continue on deputation as the law could not be circumvented to bring spouses to the same station and thus a claim to continue deputation on the basis of the "wedlock policy" was not justifiable.

Deputation could be terminated at any stage during prescribed period of deputation.

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.

Deputation could be termed as administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending departments to hire the services of an employee in public interest.

Deputationist did not have vested right to remain on the post forever or for a stipulated period.

Chief Secretary cancelled/ withdrew the repatriation order but Acting Chairman, Sindh Revenue Board, did not allow the petitioner-employee to join the duty

Validity

Sindh Revenue Board was under the administrative control of Chief Minister's Secretariat through the office of Chief Secretary

Acting Chairman, Sindh Revenue Board, had no power or authority to raise any objection against the order issued by the Chief Secretary cancelling or withdrawing the repatriation order

Impugned order passed by the Acting Chairman, Sindh Revenue Board, was without lawful authority

Neither parent department asked the Government to relieve the petitioner-employee nor it passed any order for her repatriation

Chief Secretary was competent authority to recall the repatriation order of the petitioner-employee

High Court observed that Government should make regular appointment of Chairman, Sindh Revenue Board, through competitive process

Impugned order was rightly cancelled by the Chief Secretary

Acting Chairman, Sindh Revenue Board, was directed by High Court to allow the petitioner-employee to resume her duty immediately

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

­Petitioner-employee was repatriated to his parent department but he was not allowed to join the same on the ground that no vacant post was available

Contention of department was that petitioner-employee was transferred on the ground of misconduct and corrupt practices

Sindh Service Tribunal transferred the matter to the Registrar of High Court for placing the appeal of petitioner-employee before the Tribunal constituted for the members of Subordinate Judiciary-Validity- Once repatriation order was passed and conveyed, it should have been acted upon immediately

No inquiry or disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner-employee

Repatriation o.-der was passed to implement the judgment of Supreme Court

Allegation of misconduct could be taken into consideration once the petitioner-employee was allowed to join the department

Petitioner-employee could not be shorn of joining his parent department in the anticipation of future misconduct proceedings if any

Petitioner-employee was not member of subordinate judiciary

No appeal of petitioner-employee would lie to the Tribunal meant for the members of subordinate judiciary

Administrative control of petitioner-employee would vest in the Provincial Government

Present was a matter of repatriation in the parent department which had nothing with the terms and conditions of service nor any final order was available to assail the same

Direction of Service Tribunal to fix the matter in the Tribunal constituted for the members of Subordinate Judiciary was coram non judice

Department was directed to allow the petitioner-employee to join his parent depart ment

Competent authority would be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner-employee on the charge of misconduct if any

Department was further directed to release/pay the salary of the employee immediately

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

No non-civil servant could be transferred by way of deputation to any cadre.

Assigning additional charge of Director General to the employee of Pakistan Research Council (Public Sector Corporation)

Additional charge

Scope

Employee of Pakistan Agricultural Research Council was assigned additional charge of Director General in the Department of Plant Protection

Contention of petitioner was that the post of Director General (BS-20) was required to be filled by promotion or by direct appointment of a person having Master degree in agricultural science

Validity

Post of Advisor, Director and Joint Director in the Department of Plant Protection could be filled in by promotion or by initial appointment

Respondent had been entrusted additional charge of Director General instead of making appointment either by promotion or initial appointment

Respondent had lost the status of civil servant even though he had been given additional charge on the ground that nobody was competent to hold the said post

Unlimited period of acting charge and or additional charge had been deprecated by the superior courts

Petitioner could not be non-suited on the ground that he had challenged the additional charge only which was over

Unjustified term of office could not be continued or shielded

No non-civil servant could be transferred by way of deputation to any cadre

Deputation could only be necessitated if no suitable person was available to a particular post

Temporary transfer/posting of a civil servant or by deputation of any employee of a public sector corporation was permissible in consultation with his appointing authority

Mala fide was on record on the part of department in assigning additional charge to the respondent

No effort had been made to fill the post in question by regular appointment

Impugned order had been passed in violation of law as settled by the Supreme Court, which would amount to contempt of court

Constitutional petition was admitted to regular hearing and was disposed of by High Court in the terms that additional charge of respondent was unlawful; notification for appointment of respondent was declared to have been issued without lawful authority having no legal effect; respondent was restrained from holding the post on deputation with immediate effect and department was directed to make regular appointment to the post of Director General (BS-20) immediately in accordance with law

Absorption was not a vested right of an employee and the employer had the right and authority to terminate the deputation period or repatriate the employee back to his/her parent department.

Mala fides, bias and discriminatory treatment showed by competent authority in not selecting employee for permanent absorption

Employee was transferred to Senate Secretariat on deputation basis, and during her service her permanent absorption was initiated and in such regard a NOC was also sought and accordingly granted by her parent department

Subsequently vide impugned notification she was repatriated back to her original department on the basis that Departmental Promotional Committee reviewed her Annual Confidential Reports sent from her parent department and found adverse remarks therein and her conduct and work in Senate Secretariat also remained unsatisfactory

Plea of employee that her absorption was refused because of personal mala fides of a person who initially served as Special Secretary and then was promoted as Secretary of the Senate; that said person reported about her work in his capacity as Special Secretary, and subsequently same person after becoming Secretary of Senate, sat as Chairman of Departmental Promotional Committee and considered his own reports; that Departmental Promotional Committee recommended permanent absorption of one of her colleagues despite the fact that no NOC was received from his parent department; that another of her colleague was appointed on deputation much after her but was still permanently absorbed much before the expiry of his deputation period, which showed mala fide and discrimination against her

Validity

Employee in question was recommended for promotion even in her Annual Confidential Reports, which contained adverse remarks

Such remarks reflected that employee was in a habit of expressing her opinion to the discomfort of her superiors, and in most cases such remarks would not be considered adverse remarks

Former Secretary of Senate had countersigned a Performance Evaluation Report of the employee observing that her performance was up to the mark and she was better than most officers

Many eminent senators had issued certificates to the employee wherein they had commended her work and considered her to be a true professional, but neither the Special Secretary nor the Departmental Promotional Committee considered such certificates

Chairman of Departmental Promotional Committee, who was Special Secretary at the time of preparing detrimental reports of employee, should have excused himself from sitting on the Promotional Committee when case of employee was being considered

Absorption case of one of employee's colleagues was taken up by the Departmental Promotional Committee despite the fact that no NOC was received from his parent department, while another colleague was permanently absorbed within less than two years of his deputation period

Employee in question had been discriminated against

Impugned notification whereby employee was sent back to her original department, was issued without any cogent and valid reasons and on the basis of personal bias, mala fide and discrimination

Impugned judgment of Division Bench of High Court was correct, whereby impugned notification was set aside, and case of employee's permanent absorption was remanded to the Senate Secretariat with the direction to pass a speaking order ignoring derogatory remarks in her Personal Evaluation Reports and taking into account NOC issued by her parent department, and allowing her to resume her duties from the date she was refused permission to attend office and also pay her salaries

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Performance Evaluation Report of an employee prepared by an officer, who subsequently was promoted and sat as Chairman of Departmental Promotional Committee at the time of considering said employee's permanent absorption

Effect

By sitting in the Promotional Committee and chairing it, such officer would render the recommendations of the Promotional Committee illegal

Illustration.

Absorption was not a vested right of an employee and the employer had the right and authority to terminate the deputation period or repatriate the employee back to his/her parent department.

Performance Evaluation Report of an employee prepared by an officer, who subsequently was promoted and sat as Chairman of Departmental Promotional Committee at the time of considering said employee's permanent absorption

Effect

By sitting in the Promotional Committee and chairing it, such officer would render the recommendations of the Promotional Committee illegal

Illustration.