Deputation Does Not Bar Claim For Equivalent Designation Based On Experience: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that experience gained in the parent department cannot be excluded while determining equivalent designation in the borrowing organisation.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani said that the stand that a deputationist cannot seek equivalent designation in the borrowing department is misconceived, palpably erroneous, unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory.

The petitioner, a permanent employee of respondent No.7, was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Degree Holder) and was sent on deputation to CVPPL in October 2016. Upon  , he was assigned an equivalent designation in terms of the Promoters' Agreement dated 21.12.2010

The petitioner contended that He had completed four years of service as Assistant Executive Engineer at the time of deputation and was offered the designation of Assistant Manager, later re-designated as Deputy Manager pursuant to an order dated 03.01.2019.

After completing eight years of service as a Degree Holder Assistant Executive Engineer in July 2020, he became entitled to be placed as Manager, in terms of the same order dated 03.01.2019.

A similarly placed officer, K.K. Khanna, had been re-designated as Manager, demonstrating discriminatory treatment.

The rejection of his claim on the ground that he was a deputationist was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the Promoters' Agreement.

The respondents rejected the petitioner's claim primarily on the ground that:

The petitioner was on deputation and any benefits relating to grade or designation could only be claimed under the service rules applicable in his parent department.

Placement in a higher designation in CVPPL would amount to promotion, which was impermissible for a deputationist.

Court's Analysis

The High Court rejected the respondents' reasoning, holding that neither the Promoters' Agreement nor the order dated 03.01.2019 excluded experience acquired in the parent department from being counted for determining equivalent designation in CVPPL.

Placement of a deputationist in an appropriate grade and designation based on experience does not amount to promotion, but constitutes proper placement commensurate with experience.

The stand that a deputationist cannot seek equivalent designation in the borrowing department was found to be misconceived, palpably erroneous, unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory.

The differential treatment accorded to the petitioner vis-à-vis a similarly placed officer was impermissible in law.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the impugned communication dated 14.08.2023 and Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2020.

Case-Title: Rishi Kumar vs Chenab Valley Power Projects Ltd, 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order