Supreme Court Rejects Claim For Promotion In NHAI Based On Service Rendered On Deputation

The Supreme Court on Monday (Dec. 9) observed that a deputation service could not be treated as a regular service for promotion if there was no continuity or a gap in the employee's deputation service. The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) against the High Court's decision directing the NHAI to consider an employee's (respondent no.1) un-continued deputation service for promotion. Respondent No. 1, originally an Assistant Engineer for the Tamil Nadu government, joined NHAI on deputation in 2008 as a Manager (Technical). He worked there until 2014 before being sent back to his parent department. In 2015, he re-joined NHAI as a Manager (Technical) through direct recruitment. In 2017, the appellant-NHAI issued a circular inviting eligible Managers (Technical) to apply for promotion to Deputy General Manager (Technical). Respondent No. 1 applied, claiming that his deputation service from 2008 to 2014 should count towards the required four years of service for promotion, as stated in NHAI's Recruitment Regulations. However, NHAI opposed his claim, arguing that his one-year gap between deputation and direct recruitment broke his service continuity, making him ineligible for promotion. The Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) directed NHAI to consider Respondent No. 1's deputation service for promotion and granted him a notional promotion with all benefits. The High Court upheld the CAT's decision The issue that appeared before the Supreme Court was whether the NHAI was justified in not extending Respondent No.1's un-continued deputation service for promotion purposes as per the NHAI's Recruitment Regulations and 2017 Circular. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah observed that NHAI committed no error in not extending the promotion to the un-continued deputation service of Respondent No. 1. Upon interpreting the NHAI's Recruitment Regulations and 2017 Circular, the Court said that Respondent No. 1 would be deemed to be promoted only if he had continued on the deputation service without a gap. Since, there was a one-year gap between the deputation and direct recruitment therefore, the criteria of the four years continued (without a gap) service on Manager (Technical) posts for promotion to Deputy General Manager (Technical) was not fulfilled. “As he (Respondent no.1) had been repatriated to his parent department more than a year prior to such permanent appointment, it cannot be termed 'absorption' which finds mention in the aforesaid Clause 6. Thus, respondent no.1 was a fresh and new recruit into the service of the appellant directly to the post of Manager (Technical). This was totally unrelated/unconnected to his previous service with the NHAI from 27.05.2008 till 13.06.2014 which transaction was complete and reached finality when the respondent no.1 was repatriated to his parent department.”, the Court observed. Further, the Court rejected Respondent No.1's argument that the Appellant-NHAI discriminated against him as other similarly situated individuals were extended the promotion benefits. Instead, the Court found that other similarly situated individuals continued the deputation service without a gap, which was not the case with the Respondent no.1. “The other three persons had been granted promotion for the reason that those three persons were very much working in/with the appellant on the date of consideration and had completed more than four years of minimum required service whereas the respondent no.1 had not completed four years of minimum required service. Hence, he could not have been considered for promotion from 23.07.2017 as per the direction of the CAT 18 since he had not completed four years on the post of the Manager (Technical) after having joined pursuant to direct recruitment on such post, on which service could only be reckoned from 26.08.2015.”, the court observed. Also, referring to the decision of Indu Shekhar Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the Court noted negated respondent No.1's argument about taking into account the past services rendered by the employee for promotion purposes. In Indu Shekhar Singh, the court said that the “past services can be taken into consideration only when the Rules permit the same or where a special situation exists, which would entitle the employee to obtain such benefit of past service.” Upon referring to the Circular, the Court held that Respondent No. 1's case was not covered to be extended the benefit. “Respondent no.1 shall be considered for promotion(s) in terms of the Recruitment Regulations and the Circular and the discussions made in this order and all consequential benefits of service (including pension etc., if and as applicable) shall be reckoned treating his date of entry into service of the appellant as 26.08.2015. However, no recovery/adjustment shall be...

Supreme Court Rejects Claim For Promotion In NHAI Based On Service Rendered On Deputation

Yash Mittal

Tags