Deployment For Permanent Absorption Is Distinct From Deputation; Employee Can't Be Arbitrarily Repatriated: Orissa HC

Background Facts

The appellant was working as a Peskar (technical staff) under the Revenue Department of Odisha. He was deployed for Hi-Tech Survey work in Cuttack district pursuant to a Government Resolution/Policy dated 31st January 2018. An office order dated 23rd June 2025 was issued by the Director of Land Records and Survey. Therefore appellant and three other employees were relieved from their present duties. They were repatriated to the office of the Settlement Officer, Cuttack for expeditious completion of pending settlement work.

The appellant challenged this order by filing a petition. His writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the intra-court appeal before the Orissa High Court.

It was argued by the appellant that the Single Judge misinterpreted the Government Policy dated 31.01.2018 by treating repatriation of deployed employees as entirely within the employer's discretion.

It was further argued by the appellant that there is a clear distinction between deployment, which involves sending an employee to another department with the intention of making them permanent there, and deputation, which is only a temporary arrangement made due to service exigencies. It was further argued that the rejection of the representation was incorrect, as the redeployment order mentioned that the employee was suspended.

On the other hand, it was argued by the State that the word “deployment” had been used in the policy, but it was a case of deputation. It was submitted that in public service, the employer is fully entitled to depute an employee from one department to another at his discretion.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the Government Resolution dated 31st January 2018, provided that employees working in hi-tech survey posts will remain under the Revenue Department until the last cadre member retires, but their lien and service rights stay with their original cadre. Promotions will be based on seniority in the parent cadre. Their pension will be calculated on the basis of the pay which they would have received in their original cadre.

It was further observed that the Government policy did not provide for deputation, even though the existing rules provide for it. The policy aims for employees to be permanently absorbed into the new posts.

It was observed that there is a difference when an employee is sent to another department with the intention of making that department their permanent (parent) department. In such cases, it is not treated as deputation or transfer. When the employee is given a lien on a post in the new department, it continues there and will end only when the employee retires.

The difference between transfer and deputation was noted by the Division Bench. A transfer is a move within the same cadre and organisation to an equivalent post. It can be ordered by the employer. Whereas in deputation, employee is temporarily sent outside their parent organisation. It requires the employee's consent because they continue to retain a link with their original post for promotion and other service benefits.

It was observed by the Division Bench that the appellant received a lower salary due to his repatriation. Therefore, some compensation was justified for that period. It was further observed that an employee cannot claim full salary of a post where he did not actually work.

It was further observed that the employee was forced to work elsewhere due to the orders, which put him at a disadvantage. Therefore, he should be granted 50% of the salary difference for that period.

It was noted that the policy makes it clear that for pension purposes, a deployed employee's benefits will be calculated based on the presumptive last pay in their original cadre, whether on retirement, death, or removal. This protection applies only to terminal benefits like pension. For other purposes, the employee's connection with the parent department ends. They are treated as belonging to the department where they are deployed.

Consequently, the order of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. It was directed by the Division Bench that the employee will continue in the deployed department and he must be paid 50% of the salary difference within eight weeks.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the appellant employee was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Case No. : W.A. No. 1469 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : M.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, D.K. Mohapatra, R. Nayak, B. Bariki, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents : S.B. Panda, Additional Government Advocate