The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court delivered a judgment addressing whether an employee on deputation could claim an equivalent designation in the borrowing organisation by counting experience gained in the parent department. A bench led by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani examined the case of a permanent employee who had been sent on deputation from his parent department to Chenab Valley Power Projects Ltd. (CVPPL) in October 2016. The petitioner was initially working as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Degree Holder) and, upon deputation, was assigned the designation of Assistant Manager as per the terms of the relevant Promoters’ Agreement. This designation was later re‑designated as Deputy Manager pursuant to an order dated January 3, 2019.
During his period of deputation, the petitioner completed eight years of service as an Assistant Executive Engineer and contended that this experience entitled him to be placed as a Manager under the same order that had re‑designated his role as Deputy Manager. The petitioner further pointed to the fact that another officer in a similar position, K.K. Khanna, had been re‑designated as Manager, indicating discriminatory treatment in the denial of his claim. The respondents, however, rejected the petitioner’s claim on the basis that he was on deputation and that benefits related to grade or designation could only be claimed under the service rules of his parent department. They also argued that placement in a higher designation at CVPPL would amount to a promotion, which they said was impermissible for an employee on deputation.
The High Court addressed the central issue of whether experience gained in the parent department could be excluded when determining an equivalent designation in the borrowing organisation. The court rejected the respondents’ reasoning, holding that neither the Promoters’ Agreement nor the order dated January 3, 2019, excluded the experience acquired in the parent department from being counted for the purpose of determining equivalent designation at CVPPL. The court clarified that placement of a deputationist in an appropriate grade and designation based on his overall experience did not amount to a promotion but was instead proper placement commensurate with experience. The court found that the suggestion that a deputationist could not seek an equivalent designation was fundamentally misconceived, palpably erroneous, unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory.
In reaching its conclusion, the High Court observed that the discriminatory treatment shown to the petitioner in comparison with a similarly situated officer was impermissible under law. The court noted that differential treatment on the basis that the petitioner was on deputation could not stand when the terms of the Promoters’ Agreement and the applicable order did not exclude parent department experience. The High Court held that a deputationist’s claim for equivalent designation must consider the full extent of his experience, including that gained in the parent department, and that refusal to do so amounted to arbitrary and unreasonable action.
As a result of its findings, the High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ petition, quashing both the impugned communication dated August 14, 2023, and the Office Memorandum dated October 12, 2020, which had formed the basis for the denial of his claim. The judgment underscored that the experience of a government employee should not be artificially segmented based on his deputation status when assessing eligibility for equivalent designation, and reaffirmed the principle that proper placement based on experience does not constitute an unlawful promotion for a deputationist. The case was titled Rishi Kumar vs. Chenab Valley Power Projects Ltd., 2025, and the court’s decision rectified what it viewed as unjust differential treatment towards the petitioner.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.