Page |1

Introduction
Deputation is a type or form of recruitment. It means a temporary employment outside one’s
original cadre or parent department to meet any type of administrative exigency. It is the
result of a tripartite agreement between the employee, the lending department and the
borrowing department made for a particular purpose in public interest. When the purpose for
which the deputation was made is met, the deputationist has to revert back to the parent
department.

The Honourable Supreme Court explained the meaning of term deputation and the various
steps in the case of State of Punjab Versus Inder Singh1 in the following words,

“Concept of deputation is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning.
‘Deputation’ has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the
word deputation is of no help. In simple words deputation means service outside the cadre or
outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post
outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry
period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the
same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as
per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not
is decided by the authority which controls the service or post from which the employee is
transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he
would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post.”

The law regarding deputation and rights of the deputationists is not consolidated at one place
as such but there are a number of precedents which have done the job of clarifying the
position about such matters which shall be discussed in the subsequent parts of the project.
The details about the process and the need to have such a method of recruitment were
explained by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Umapati Choudhary Versus State
of Bihar and Another2 in the following words:

“Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to

as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred
to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or
organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on
deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of
deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the
services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing
employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not.”

It is evident from the words used by the Apex Court in this case that the process of deputation
is largely based on consensus.

1
(1995) 8 SCC 372.
2
AIR 1999 SC 1948.
 Page |2

Characteristics
After study of the relevant precedents the following characteristics of deputation can be
concluded:

1. Temporary Appointment- The appointment made under deputation is usually

limited by the purpose or duration and it has to come to an end after the fulfilment of
the purpose or lapse of time duration. After the expiry period of deputation, the
employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the position, unless in
the mean time, he has earned promotion in his parent department as per recruitment
rules.

2. Consensus- Deputation is a consensus concept where consent of three parties is must

first is the principal employer, second is the borrowing authority and the third is the
employee himself. In case one of these is absent such an assignment cannot be termed
as deputation.

3. Administrative Exigency- An administrative exigency may sometimes require the

services of an official at a particular place and then that official be sent to that place
on deputation. At times such situations crop up which require a particular skill or
qualification and such requirement necessitates trade of employees among the various
departments of the State.

4. Last Resort- An appointment on deputation shall not be made to a post until and
unless it has been found that no suitable, eligible person is available for appointment
to the said post. The borrowing authority has to record administrative reasons that
suitable persons are not available either by direct recruitment, transfer or by
promotion. It has been held that till its own employees are available for promotion,
the borrowing authority cannot block their chances of promotion by filling up the
posts by deputation without considering its own employees for promotion.

5. Public Interest- Welfare States these days have the ultimate consideration of working
for public interest and most of their pursuits are fuelled by this objective. Deputation
as a mode of recruitment is preferably used only in public interest as it a bit unusual
method of appointment.

6. Preference to senior employee- It is well settled that when a senior most

departmental employee is available then it would be wholly unwarranted to call
another person on deputation, unless there are any compelling reasons, like the
pendency criminal or disciplinary proceedings against him. Non-consideration of such
senior employee for promotion has been held illegal and arbitrary3.

3
Narender Kumar, Law relating to Government Servants and management of Disciplinary Proceedings (Service
Law). (Faridabad: Allahabad Law Agency). 2018.
 Page |3

Rights of the Deputationist

The deputationist has been provided with the following rights during his employment in the
borrowing entity:

1. Consent of employee- No person can be appointed on deputation without his consent.

He must, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The services
of an official on deputation to another department or organisation are treated as
equivalent to services in parent department.

2. Service Benefits- A person on deputation is entitled to all the service benefits as his
counterparts are drawing in his parent department. However, a deputationist cannot
seek for parity in treatment with those in his parent department. The service of an
officer on deputation in the new department is equivalent to service rendered in the
parent department. Therefore, if such a person, renders satisfactory service and is
considered fit for obtaining increments and promotions in the new department, he
should be deemed to be fit for promotion in the parent department. Where an officer
next below him in the parent department, was getting promotion based on seniority-
cum-merit, the deputationist, would be entitled to promotion in the parent department.
Such a person is given a paper promotion and is to be shown holding a higher post in
the parent department, if an officer next below him, is being promoted.

3. Lien in the Parent Department- The term lien comes from the Latin word
“ligament” meaning “binding”. It connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post
substantively to which he is appointed.

A deputationist is entitled to retain lien in his parent department. Therefore, on

repatriation to his parent department, he becomes entitled, not only to all the benefits
which he would have secured in his parent department but also to the restoration to
him of every higher post which he would have occupied in the normal course of
events in his parent department, had he remained there without having been deputed
to another department. In case, the employee has retained lien over the post in his
parent department, that post cannot be treated as vacant. A person can be said to
acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that
post and not earlier. The lien continues, till he is absorbed in any post4.

4. No right to be absorbed- A deputationist does not have any indefeasible right to

insist that he should not be recalled by the parent department before the expiry of the
specified period. He cannot claim any right to be absorbed in the borrowing
department, even though he had been on deputation for substantially long period.
Again, where a deputationist has held any higher post in the borrowing organisation,

4
Narender Kumar, Law relating to Government Servants and management of Disciplinary Proceedings (Service
Law). (Faridabad: Allahabad Law Agency). 2018.
 Page |4

on his repatriation, he cannot claim promotion in his parent department, merely on the
basis of officiating in higher post in the borrowing organisation.
Where a deputationist has been permanently absorbed in the borrowing organisation,
he stands retired from his parent department. However, he would be entitled to count
his service rendered by him in the parent department for determination of his
promotion in the transferred department. And where a deputationist completes the age
of superannuation in the deputation post but not in the parent organisation, he is
entitled to go back to his substantive post in the parent department.

5. Deputation Allowance- The Service Rules provide for the payment of deputation
allowance to the deputationist. Even in the absence of such a provision, residuary
rules would have to be applied for the grant of deputation allowance. The Punjab and
Haryana High Court, however, has held that where no public interest is involved and
the employee is sent on deputation in his own interest, he would not be entitled to
claim deputation allowance.

6. Disciplinary control of Parent Department- The Honourable Supreme Court of

India has ruled in the case of Khemi Ram Versus State of Punjab 5 that a person on
deputation remains under the disciplinary control of the parent department. The
appellant in this case was sent on deputation and was allowed a leave preparatory to
retirement by the borrowing department. However the lending department cancelled
his leave and suspended him for a matter involving embezzlement of funds. He was
not allowed to retire until the enquiry for misconduct against him was concluded and
final orders passed thereon.

7. Calculation of Pension- In case an employee is getting higher pay while on

deputation, his pension is to be calculated in terms of the salary the employee would
have drawn in the parent department, for the higher pay was given to him as an
incentive while on deputation6.

8. Repatriation to the Parent Department- The lending authority is competent to

terminate deputation and repatriate the deputationist before completion of period of
deputation. Where the order of repatriation on the face of it does not show that there
was any stigma attached to the official and no allegations of mala fide were made by
him, the order would be by way of punishment. The borrowing department can
repatriate the deputationist to his parent department in public interest or exigencies of
the administration. However, the official must be given a relieving order and told that
he is being sent to his parent department. In the absence of specific repatriation order,
it has been held, that the official will continue as deputationist and cannot be treated
as having been repatriated to his parent department. Therefore, there is no automatic
repatriation.
5
AIR 1976 SC 1737.
6
Narender Kumar, Law relating to Government Servants and management of Disciplinary Proceedings (Service
Law). (Faridabad: Allahabad Law Agency). 2018.
 Page |5

It may be noted that where there is no fixed period for deputation, it is the right of
either of the authorities either to repatriate the deputationist or call him back, as the
case may be, at their own pleasure. But, the parent authority or the deputation
authority should be made aware of such repatriation or recall, as the case may be, in
advance to avoid administrative complications. The person concerned can always and
at any time be repatriated to his parent department and there is no vested right in such
a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to
which he had gone on deputation.

9. Fixation of Seniority- As regards the fixation of seniority of a deputationist on his

absorption in deputed post, it has been ruled that such a person should get benefit of
length of service rendered on regular basis in equivalent grade. Any rule, regulation or
executive instruction which has the effect of taking away the service rendered by a
deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the parent department while counting his
seniority in the deputed post, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Hence, liable to be struck down.

In R.L. Gupta Versus Union of India7, the appellant was a judicial officer who was
sent on deputation and was superseded in promotion i.e. his juniors were given
promotion before him on the pretext that he had given his consent for deputation so he
was liable to suffer the consequences. The supersession was held to be bad in law and
the Honourable Supreme Court stated as follows:

“It is well-known that many officers have to be sent on deputation in the public
interest to other departments in order to meet the exigencies of public service and that
before sending them on deputation their consent is invariably taken. Merely because
they have given their consent to go on deputation they should not be allowed to suffer
unless there is a specific rule to the contrary or other good reason for it.”

10. Curtailment of Service- Although such appointment is purely short term

appointment, the deputationist acquires a right to remain in the deputation post till the
regular recruitment. His deputation can only be terminated or curtailed on grounds of
unsatisfactory performance or unsuitability. Unsuitability may arise owing to
misconduct also8.

Reversion and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India

7
AIR 1988 SC 968.
8
Randhir Kumar De, Cases and Materials on Service Disputes. (New Delhi: Eastern Law House). 2007.
 Page |6

Article 311(2) in the Constitution Of India, 1949- No such person as aforesaid shall be
dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been
informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of those charges.
Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty,
such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it
shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the
penalty proposed.
Provided further that this clause shall not apply- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed
or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal
charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him
in rank ins satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not
reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the
case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to
hold such inquiry.
The question as to operation of the provisions of Article 311(2), in case a deputationist is
reverted back to his parent department arose in K.H. Phadnis Versus State of Maharashtra9
before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in which the appellant was on deputation
and was reverted back to his parent department as a result of charges of misconduct without
giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court observed as follows:
“The order of reversion simpliciter will not amount to a reduction in rank or a punishment. A
Government servant holding a temporary post and having lien on his substantive post may be
sent back to the substantive post in ordinary routine administration or because of exigencies
of service. A person holding a temporary post may draw a salary higher than that of his
substantive post and when he is reverted to his parent department the loss of salary cannot be
said to have any penal consequence. Therefore though the Government has right to revert a
Government servant from the temporary post to a substantive post, the matter has to be
viewed as one of substance and all relevant factors are to be considered in ascertaining
whether the order is a genuine one of "accident of service" in which a person sent from the
substantive post to a temporary post has to go back to the parent post without an aspersion
against his character or integrity or whether the order amounts to a reduction in rank by way
of punishment. Reversion by itself will not be a stigma. On the other hand, if there is
evidence that the order of reversion is not "a pure accident of service" but an order in the
nature of punishment, Article 311 will be attracted.”

Absorption of a Deputationist
As has been explained, the concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary
decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance
of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to
go on deputation or not. Above all, it is done in the public interest. In case, the parent
department, the borrowing department, as also, the deputationist, give their consent for the
permanent absorption in the establishment of the borrowing authority, it cannot be challenged
unless it is not done in public interest or is vitiated by favouritism or mala fide. The question
of right of absorption in the borrowing department came up for consideration before the

9
AIR 1971 SC 998.
 Page |7

Honourable Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda Versus Union of India10 and was decided as
follows:

“It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for permanent absorption in the
department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory rule, regulation or
order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for
absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can
always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive
position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in
such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which
he had gone on deputation.”

The appellant was considered for absorption in the borrowing department as both the
departments had agreed on his absorption but afterwards it was found that he did not have the
requisite qualification to be absorbed in the department. As a result, the appellant decided to
file the case and claim absorption as a matter of right. But the Court held that there did not
exist any such right and the petition was dismissed.

It must be noted that deputation is not the same as absorption. There is a considerable
distinction between the two terms. With regards to absorption, the officer who at the onset
begins in deputation, might be absorbed into a permanent position, if the rules of recruitment
impose that absorption can be given due recognition as the prescribed procedure of
recruitment. Such mode can only be brought about in the circumstances of those Central or
State Government officers/ officials who are already on deputation11.

Deputation and Transfer

Transfer is to be distinguished from deputation. While the concept of deputation is

consensual, transfer is a condition of service. Transfer of an employee is done on account of
administrative exigencies. However, the same can be on any post borne, on the cadre of the
service. Transfer to any post outside the cadre of service is held to be in the nature of
deputation. It is for the employer to decide as to when and where the transfer is to be made.
In such a case, normally, the Court will not interfere unless it is tainted with mala fides.

Whenever a public servant is transferred, he must comply with the order. In case of any
genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer, it is open to him to make representation to the
competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. In the absence
of non-acceptance of his representation, the employee has no justification to avoid or evade
the transfer order. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance with the order, he would
expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant Service Rules.

It has been accepted that for superior and responsible posts, the continued stay or posting at
one station or in one department, is not conducive for good administration. At the same time,
the authorities should reasonable and fair in implementing their policy relating to transfer.

10
(2000) 5 SCC 362.
11
Sylvine, The Concept of Deputation of Emplyees. (Kolkata: iPleaders).2016.
 Page |8

In Gujarat Electricity Board Versus Atmaram Sungomal Poshani 12, the respondent was
discharged from his services because he disobeyed the transfer orders and filed a civil suit
against the order as earlier he had requested to delay his transfer. The order of discharge was
held to be valid and the Honourable Supreme Court stated that:

“Transfer of a government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from

one place to the other is an incident of service. No government servant or employee of public
undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place
to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter.
Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public
administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if
there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make
representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer
order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public
servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a
public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground
of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place
to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would
expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant Rules, as has happened in the instant
case.”

Transfers made on account of administrative exigencies cannot be questioned. But, where the
action of the authority is tainted with mala fides or is a colourable exercise of power or taken
with oblique motives, the Court’s interference would be permissible.

Where transfer is ordered at the far end of his career, inference of malice may be drawn on
the part of the authorities.

It is a trite law that the employee is not to be heard before his transfer, if it is made keeping
the exigencies of the administration in view. Unless there is an urgency to do so, transfer
should not be affected during mid-academic term, so as not to affect the children of the
employees studying in educational institutions.

It has been held to be a settled law that the Courts would not normally interfere in matters of
transfer except in cases where the petitioner is able to show mala fides on the part of the
employer.

Transfer
Transfer is considered to be a condition of
service. It can be challenged only on the basis
of mala fides or violation of any statutory
rule.
The employer is the deciding authority in the
matter of transfers. It is in the nature of a
right available to the master.
Transfer is usually done within one’s cadre
and in the same department.
Deputation
Deputation is a consensual appointment to
meet any administrative exigency.
The decision about deputation is based on
tripartite agreement between the employee,
lending authority and borrowing authority.
Transfer to any post outside the cadre of
service is held to be in the nature of
deputation.

12
AIR 1989 SC 1433.
 Page |9

Transfer on Deputation and Appointment on Deputation

In Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Versus Union of India, 13 the appellant was appointed on
deputation after considering the appellant against other applicants for the post. The
recruitment was found to be in the nature of appointment on deputation rather than transfer
on deputation. The order terminating the appointment of appellant was found to be invalid
and hence was set aside. The Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:

“Ordinarily transfers on deputations are made as against equivalent post from one cadre to
another, one department to another, one organisation to another or one Government to
another; in such case a deputationist has no legal right in the post. Such deputationist has no
right to be absorbed in the post to which he is deputed. In such case, deputation does not
result into recruitment, as no recruitment in its true import and significance takes place as the
person is continued to be a member of the parent service.

However, the aforesaid principle cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment
(recruitment) on deputation. In such case, for appointment on deputation in the services of the
State or organisation or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India,
the provisions of Article 14 and Article 16 are to be followed. No person can be
discriminated nor is it open to the appointing authority to act arbitrarily or to pass any order
in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person, who applies for appointment
on deputation has indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally and once such person is
selected and offered with the letter of appointment on deputation, the same cannot be
cancelled except on the ground of non- suitability or unsatisfactory work.”

13
(2012) 7 SCC 757.
 P a g e | 10

Conclusion

Deputation can be called as a lateral entry into a cadre. It is not always necessary that
appointments to a cadre must be made from open market or by promotion. Deputation is
result of a tripartite agreement among the employee, the parent department and borrowing
department. It is form of transfer outside cadre necessitated by an administrative exigency.
Public Interest is the most relevant consideration while making a decision about deputation.
Being an appointment made after taking consent of the employee, there are many conditions
in favour and against the deputationist like the lien over parent position, deputation
allowance, non-curtailment of service without just cause, no right of absorption, etc.
Although deputation can be made only with consent of the employee, repatriation to the
parent department need not be done after taking consent. Unsuitability and/or unsatisfactory
performance are the two recognised grounds on which deputation may be terminated. As
various types of situations come up every day requiring people of a very specific skill set or
qualification, deputation is a very helpful method to meet such requirements.