ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher DR.

KULJIT SINGH who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful presentation on the topic DEPUTATION Under Service Laws
which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know
about so many new things I am really thankful to them.

Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped
me a lot in finalizing this project within the limited time frame.

SIMRANDEEP SINGH
 DEPUTATION

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. DEPUTATION: Introduction..................................................................PAGE NO. 3

2. Rights of Deputationalist.......................................................................PAGE NO. 5

3. Deputationist's Lien...............................................................................PAGE NO. 5

4. No Right to be Absorbed.......................................................................PAGE NO. 6

5. Repatriation to the Parent Department..................................................PAGE NO. 7

6. Basic principle underlying deputation....................................................PAGE NO. 8

7. Absorption of a Deputationist................................................................PAGE NO. 9

8. Repatriation-Right to Pay Scale..........................................................PAGE NO. 10

9. Deputation-Transfer............................................................................PAGE NO. 11

10. Conclusion.........................................................................................PAGE NO. 14

11. References........................................................................................PAGE NO. 15

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 2

 DEPUTATION

DEPUTATION
Introduction

‘Deputation of an official is a form of transfer from one department to another or from

one Government to another.'

Literally, it means "to appoint a person to act in an official capacity or as a

representative." It has a different connotation in Service Law and the dictionary meaning of
the word "deputation" is of no help there under.

In simple words, "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent
department1, in which an employee is serving. Explaining the concept of "deputation" in
Service Law, the Supreme Court in Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar2, observed

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.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh3, observed .

Concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised

meaning....In simple words, 'deputation' means service outside the cadre or outside the
parent department. "

Deputation", the Court said "means 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 meantime, he has earned promotion in his parent department as per
Recruitment Rules, the person so deputed and he would therefore, know his rights and
privileges in the deputation post."

1 State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, AIR 1998 SC 7

2 AIR 1999 SC 1948
3 (1997) 8 SCC 372

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 3

 DEPUTATION

It is, therefore, that administrative exigencies may, sometimes, require the services of an
official at a particular place and then that official be sent to that place on deputation. It may
be noted that 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 by promotion."

In Balachandran v. State of Kerala4, It was 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. However, no
consultation with Public Service Commission for ascertaining the suitability of a candidate for
appointment on deputation is necessary. Where an official proposed to be sent on
deputation, is subsequently excluded from being so deputed, there would not be violation of
any right of such person.

4 1998(6) SLR (Ker.) 185.

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 4

 DEPUTATION

Rights of the Deputationist

No person can be appointed on deputation without his consent 5. 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. 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.

In Raj Kanwal v. State of Punjab6, the petitioners on deputation to Chandigarh

Administration from the State of Punjab, were held not entitled to claim pre-mature increment
given to the Punjab Government employees, who did not participate in the general strike,
resulting from the call of general strike that was affecting the State service.

It has been ruled by the Apex Court in R.L. Gupta v. Union of India, that the member going
on deputation in judicial service, could not lose their seniority even if he opted for deputation
at his own risk.

Deputationist's Lien

It is a settled position of law that the deputationist is entitled to retain lien in his
parent department7. 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 of every higher post which he would have occupied in the normal
course of him events in his parent department, had he remained there without having been
deputed to another department.'

Lien is not a word of art. It just connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post
substantively to which he is appointed. The term lien comes from the Latin term
"ligament" meaning "binding".

The meaning of lien in Service Law is different from other meanings in the context of
contract, Common Law, Equity, etc. In case, the employee has retained lien over the post in
his parent department, that post cannot be treated as vaccant. 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 post.

It is thus a settled position of law that a deputationist is entitled to retain lien in his
parent department till absorbed on any post. 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 he has retained lien over
the post in his parent department, that post cannot be treated as vacant.

5 State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, AIR 199B SC 7

6 (2012) 5 SLR 722 (P & H)
7 State of Mysore v. P.N. Nanjudiah, (1969) 3 SCC 633

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 5

 DEPUTATION

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 department8, even though he had been on
deputation for substantially long period.

Again, where a deputationist has held any higher post in the borrowing organisation, on his
repatriation, he cannot claim promotion in his parent department, merely on the basis of
officiation in higher post in the borrowing organisation. 9

In case, 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.

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.10

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. Concept of deputation, it is said, carries concept of allowance
which has been styled as deputation allowance. Probably, deputation allowance has its
origin in an inducement that may be offered to the employee to give his consent so as to
serve outside the parent department or outside the cadre. The Punjab and Haryana High
Court, however, held that where no public interest was involved and the employee is sent on
deputation in his own interest, he would not be entitled to claim deputation allowance.

Again, like an officer who is a direct recruit, an official who is on deputation, is eligible for
promotion in the borrowing department.

In Khem Chand v. State of Punjab11, the appellant, a Punjab Government employee, was
sent on deputation to the Himachal Pradesh Government. On reaching the age of
superannuation, he was allowed by the H.P. Administration, leave preparatory to retirement.
However, the Punjab Government cancelled his leave and suspended him. He was not
allowed to retire until the enquiry for misconduct against him was concluded and final orders
passed thereon. The Apex Court upheld the action of the Punjab Government and ruled that
the person on deputation remained under the disciplinary control of the parent department.

The question of promotion of a deputationist, in his parent department, had arisen before the
Courts. It has been held that 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
8 Commander Krishan Kumar v. H.A.L., Banglore, 1998(6) SLR (Karnataka)
9 State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, AIR 199B SC 7
10 Registrar, T.N.V.A.S University v. S.A. Quayam, 1994 SCC (LS) 49
11 AIR 1976 SC 1737

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 6

 DEPUTATION

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. 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 deputation.

The question arises as to whether the period spent by the employee on deputation, can be
counted for the payment of pension.

The Calcutta High Court in Manoj Kumar Ghosh State of W.B12., held that where the
Service Rules did not stipulate that the Government employee was not entitled to pension or
the period spent on deputation, that period must be counted for payment of pension.

Repatriation to the Parent Department

Explaining the concept of transfer and deputation, the Apex Court in Prasar Bharti v.
Amarjeet Singh, 13held that a person sent in a cadre outside his substantive cadre, had no
right to continue in the foreign cadre and he could be repatriated to his parent cadre at any
point of time, without assigning any reason. Further, that the authorities could not be
required to assign any reason, whatsoever, in an order of transfer and that such power of
transfer could not be fettered by requiring them to record reasons.

The question of right of the employee to continue on deputation has been considered by the
Apex Court in a catena of cases, and it has been well established that

... a deputationist has no right to remain on deputation and he can be sent back to his parent
Department at any time.

An official on deputation, remains under the disciplinary control of 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 not be by way of punishment.
14

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

12 (2014) 2 SLR 715 (Cal.) (DB)

13 (2007) 2 SCALE 486.
14 D. K. Rao v. Govt. of India, 1994(5) SLR (AP.) 325

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 7

 DEPUTATION

cannot be treated as having been repatriated to his parent department. Therefore, there
is no automatic repatriation.

It may, therefore, 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. Unless it is shown that an order of transfer/repatriation is
contrary to the Statutory Rules or is otherwise mala fide or has been passed by the
incompetent authority, the Court would not interfere. But, the parent authority or the
deputation authority should be made aware of such repatriation or recall, the case may be, in
advance to avoid administrative complications. It has also been held that the period of
deputation originally fixed can be cut short, if necessary.

The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that :

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.

So ruled, the Apex Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India15, rejected the claim of the
appellant for permanent absorption in the borrowing department, since he did not possess
the necessary qualification required for the incumbent of that post. It may, however, be
stated that the employee can allege that his repatriation was in any manner prejudicial for his
service conditions including emoluments.

For instance, in Narendra Kumar Hindani v. State of Rajasthan16, the petitioner

appointed, as a teacher, in an Upper Primary School, was transferred on deputation to
another school. He was ordered to be repatriated to his original place of posting, which
school, in the mean time, got upgraded as Secondary School. Since the petitioner could not
show that his repatriation was prejudicial to his service conditions, the impugned order of
repatriation was held not illegal.

In R.G.C.A.D. Authority v. Sheetal Kumar Vaish17, the respondent, appointed by Milk

Board, Kanpur, on temporary basis, was sent on deputation to Command Area Development
Authority. Subsequently, his post was abolished by the Authority and he was asked, by the
Milk Board, to be relieved, which the Authority complied with. It was held that the respondent
having been on deputation, could not dispute the fact, though he was appointed on
temporary basis, his repatriation to the Milk Board was held not illegal. Even if appointment
on deputation is made by facing selection process, it can be terminated any time by special
or general order.

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 v. State of Maharashtra18.
The appellant on deputation, holding a temporary post and having a lien on his substantive

15 AIR 2000 SC 2076

16 (2012) 2 SLR 708 (Raj.)
17 AIR 2003 SC 1340
18 AIR 1971 SC 998

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 8

 DEPUTATION

post in his parent department, was reverted to his parent department. In such cases, it was a
held that compliance of Article 311(2) would depend on the facts of a particular case. It
was explained that though the Government had the right to revert the employee to his
substantive post, the matter had to be viewed as one of substance and all relevant factors
were to be considered in ascertaining whether, the order of reversion, was genuine one of
"accident of service" in which, a person sent on deputation from the substantive post to a
temporary post, had to go back to the parent post, without an aspersion against his
character or integrity or whether the order amounted to one of reduction in rank by way of
punishment.

However, an employee, entitled to special pay on deputation, on repatriation resulting in loss

of that special pay, cannot resist that the repatriation is punitive in nature. It is, thus, well
settled legal position that the entitlement to receive higher pay scale on deputation, is not an
impediment in sending back the employee to his parent department.

It is well settled that on repatriation to the parent department, the employee is not
entitled to higher pay scale, which he was drawing while holding post on deputation.

Absorption of a Deputationist

As has been explained that 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.19

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, Order, having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in
any such claim for absorption. It is well settled that an employee of an Organisation
possesses no right to insist on absorption in service of another.

For instance, in Niranjan Kumar Choudhary v. S.P. & M. Corpn. of India20, the petitioner
on deputation with the respondent, applied for absorption, which offer was accepted by the
latter. It was held that, in the absence of any order of the appointing authority, directing
absorption, the petitioner could not insist that he be continued in service of the respondent in
one form or the other.

19 Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 1948

20 (2012) 2 SLR 382 (A.P.)

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 9

 DEPUTATION

In Kunal Nanda v. Union of India21, the Apex Court observed :

A deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim for permanent absorption in the
department where he works on deputation, unless his claim is based upon a statutory rule,
regulation or order having the force of law. A deputationist, can always, at any time, be
repatriated to his parent department, at the instance of either borrowing department or
parent department. There is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on
deputation or get absorbed in borrowing department.

Recently, the Delhi High Court held that a deputationist did not have any indefeasible right to
permanent absorption, if the post to which he was sent on deputation, was capable of being
filled up by permanent absorption.

In Border Security Force Personnel v. Union of India22, the Court said that the absorption
of a deputationist was a matter of policy of the Department and that the deputationist had no
legal right to be absorbed to the post on which he was sent on deputation.
In the instant case, the BSF men had been sent to the IB on deputation in 1999, for an initial
period of three years, which was extended on a yearly basis, the maximum period of
deputation being five years for personnel of CRPF.

Relying on the Recruitment Rules framed by the MOHA for the IB, which allocated 75 per
cent of the posts for appointment by direct recruitment and 25 per cent by
deputation/absorption from officers of Central Police Organisations/State Police Forces or
Defence Personnel, the petitioners had sought their permanent absorption in the IB.
Rejecting their claim, the Court upheld the repatriation of the petitioners as not improper or
illegal.

Repatriation-Right to Pay Scale

In Union of India v. S.N. Maity23, one of the questions was whether the employee
repatriated to parent department could claim the same salary as he was drawing while on
deputation. Rejecting the contention of the employee, the Apex Court held that there was no
rule or regulation that he would get the equivalent pay scale in his parent department. It
was, thus, ruled that on repatriation to parent department, the employee would not be
entitled to higher pay scale which he was drawing, while holding post on deputation.

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.

21 (2000) 5 SCC 362

22 The Tribune, 4.5.2015
23 AIR 2015 SC 1008

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 10

 DEPUTATION

The Apex Court, in Sub-Inspector, Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, Delhi24, observed

...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.

The Apex Court reiterated and relied on the above observation in Union of India v. Kuldip
Singh Permer25, and held the respondent entitled to claim benefit of service rendered in his
parent department. The respondent was appointed as Science Master in State Education
Department w.e.f. 26-9-1970 in the pay scale of Rs. 220-500. He joined Special Service
Bureau as deputationist from 8th February, 1977, as Circle Organizer. On his exercising
option, he was absorbed in the said post of Circle Organiser w.e.f. 8th August, 1984. Grade
of post of Science Master got revised from 1-1-1978, which post becoming higher in grade
than the post of Circle Organiser. The Apex Court held the respondent entitled to benefit of
service he rendered as Science Master from 1-1-1978. It was ruled that his seniority in the
post of Circle Organiser, was to be fixed after counting his service in his parent department
from 1-1-1978 onwards.

It is well settled that an incumbent, who has been transferred from one Lace to the other,
would have a lien on his original placement and the same cannot be denied, even if the
same is consented by the incumbent himself. After repatriation to his original place of
appointment, where he has a lien, as a matter of right, he would be entitled to be accorded
with all the benefits that would have accrued to him had he been continued at his original
place.

Deputation-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 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.

Distinguishing between "deputation" and "transfer", the Gujarat High Court in Bhagwati
Prasad v. State of Gujarat,26' observed :

..transfer is always limited to equivalent post in the

same cadre and in the same department.

24 AIR 2000 SC 594.

25 AIR 2003 SC 3614.
26 (1997) 2 SLR 551

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 11

 DEPUTATION

Deputation and transfer, the Court said:

basically differ from each other in the sense that transfer can be only to an equivalent post in
the same cadre, deputation must be in department other than the parent department where
even equivalence may not have been determined.

Stating that "transfer" is right of the master and that it is an incident of service, the Court
said, "it can only be challenged on the grounds of malafide or violation of Statutory Rule
relating to transfer", "Deputation can only be with the consent....and he cannot be made to
serve somewhere else...".

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.27

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 be reasonable and fair in implementing their
policy relating to transfer.

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.

In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar28, the respondent was working as Fireman Grade I and
posted in Bhatinda. A show cause notice was issued to him as to why disciplinary action
should not be taken against him for giving misleading statement/information. An Enquiry
Officer was appointed since the respondent failed to respond to the notice. Subsequently, he
was transferred from Bhatinda to Suratgarh. He challenged the transfer contending that it
was made against the Posting/Transfer Policy of the Government. He also argued that the
transfer was made during the middle of the academic year which was not permissible in
terms of the Policy. Refuting the contentions raised by the respondent, the Hon'ble High
Court ruled that the guidelines contained in the Transfer Policy, were not statutory and did
not confer any legally enforceable right on the basis of which an employee could challenge
his transfer. No doubt, normally, the guidelines were to be adhered to by the administrative
authorities, but their non-adherence would entitle an employee to bring such facts to the
notice of the superior authorities, but did not confer any right to seek quashing of the
transfer.

27 Gujrat State Electricity Board v. A.S. Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433

28 2008 (3) SLR 666.

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 12

 DEPUTATION

In a catena of judgments, the Apex Court has ruled that a transfer order could be
interfered with if "it was shown to be vitiated by mala fide, or in violation of the
statutory provisions; or having been passed by an authority not competent to pass
such an order." Since none of the three conditions, were satisfied, the Hon'ble Punjab
and Haryana High Court held the action of the petitioner, as not bad.

The Apex Court in Gujarat State Electricity Board v. Atmaram29, observed :

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.

In Munna Lal Sharma v. Managing Director, Rajasthan SRTC30, the question before the
Rajasthan Court related the valid of transfer of a booking clerk, having served as such for 19
years, to the post of conductor, though both the cadres were the same and interchangeable,
there however was an agreement reached between the Corporation and the employees'
union against such interchangeability. Holding the transfer of the petitioner, a senior
employee, as bad in the eye of law, the Court observed :

... there cannot be any objection to the proposition that the post being interchangeable, the
posting of employee of one post to the other inter-post may be done and that would not be
inconsistent with the interchangeable character of the two posts but in case like this where
with regard to a particular interchangeable post, a policy decision has been taken and a
settlement arrived at by the Corporation based on the demand raised by the union, anything
done contrary thereto shall not be fair and may breed arbitrariness.

29 AIR 1989 SC 1433.

30 2008 (3) SLR 521.

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 13

 DEPUTATION

CONCLUSION

Deputation is therefore, temporary transfer of the employee to other department.

After the expiry period of deputation, the employee has to come back to his parent
department to occupy the same position. Till the time he is on deputation he will have all the
rights and liabilities of the post he is holding in that department.

To send a employee on deputation, his consent should be taken. No employee can be sent
to deputation to other department without his consent. And if the deputationalist is called
back to his parent department then he has no right to deny.

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 14

 DEPUTATION

REFERENCES

Books Referred:-

 Kumar. Narender, Law Relating to Government Servants & Management of

Disciplinary Proceedings (Service Laws), Allahabad Law Agency, 4 th Edition, 2018.

 Bhatnagar A.S., Guide to Departmental Problems Enquiries, Punishment and

Appeal.

Web Links Referred :-

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-deputation-
employees/#:~:text=It%20is%20simply%20stated%20that,position%20for%20a%20t
emporary%20period.

 https://lawrato.com/labour-service-legal-advice/what-is-the-meaning-of-deputation-
and-its-terms-and-conditions-51742

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B (8TH SEMESTER) ROLL NO. 81 Page 15