P&H High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ex-IAS Ashok Khema As Empanelled Addl Secretary, Holds Denial Arbitrary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed a plea filed by retired IAS officer Ashok Khemka, holding that denial of empanelment to the rank of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India, despite similar relaxations granted to other officers, was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda was dealing with a challenge to orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting Khemka's claim for empanelment on the ground that he did not fulfill the requirement of three years' central deputation at the level of Deputy Secretary or above.

“Once, similarly situated Officers as that of the petitioner were granted relaxation for empenalling them as Additional Secretary/Secretary with the Govt. Of India, the question that why such relaxation was not granted to the petitioner without any valid reason remains uncontroverted,” noted the bench.

Khemka, a 1991-batch IAS officer, argued that several similarly situated officers were granted relaxation from this requirement and were empanelled despite having no central deputation experience. He also cited instances where such relaxation was granted even after rejection of his claim.

The Court noted that the Union of India did not dispute the fact that multiple IAS officers had been granted empanelment by relaxing the eligibility condition. It observed that once such relaxation had been exercised in favour of similarly situated officers, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner without any distinguishing reason amounted to discrimination.

Rejecting the Union Government's contention that the petition had become infructuous due to the petitioner's retirement, the Court held that empanelment continues to hold relevance for post-retirement assignments and future prospects.

Benefit Of Parity

The Bench held that non-extension of similar relaxation to the petitioner violated the principles of equality. It emphasized that in the absence of any differentiating factor, denying parity would cause prejudice.

“Once, the Union of India exercises jurisdiction to relax the requirement of having worked on central deputation for a minimum period of three years at the level of Deputy Secretary and above and such relaxation was even exercised in favour of similarly situated IAS Officers, the non-exercise of the same will surely amount to discrimination, unless and until any differentiating fact is brought to the notice of the Court which exist between the petitioner herein and the other Officers, who have been granted relaxation while empanellling for the cadre of Additional Secretary with the Government of India,” the bench observed.

It further added that since, there is no such differentiating fact which has been brought to the notice of the Court between the petitioner and the other IAS Officers who were empanelled in the cadre of Additional Secretary/Secretary with the Government of India by grant of exemption of having worked in the cadre of Deputy Secretary or above with the Government of India, same will amount to discrimination between the similarly situated Officers so as to violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Court made it clear that in such a condition, the benefit of parity has to be granted to the petitioner with the other similarly situated Officers herein so that no prejudice is caused to him.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed that, although no actual empanelment benefits could be granted post-retirement, the petitioner shall be treated as having been empanelled as Additional Secretary/Secretary for the limited purpose of consideration for future assignments where such empanelment is a prerequisite.

Title: Ashok Khemka v. Union of India and another

Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, with Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent-UOI.

Click here to read order