Allahabad High Court
RAKESH KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A prolonged deputation does not change its character to a transfer, and the respondents were lawfully entitled to end the petitioner’s deputation.
Summary
The petitioner, a Permanent Way Mistri employed by East Central Railway, was deputed to Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi in 1997 for an initial three‑year period, which was subsequently extended repeatedly until 2019 when the deputation was terminated. He contended that the deputation had exceeded the Master Circular's five‑year limit and therefore should be deemed a regular transfer, seeking regularisation and absorption in the DLW. The respondents maintained that the petitioner remained on deputation throughout, his promotions and seniority were recorded in his parent cadre, and that the borrowing authority was entitled to end the deputation. The High Court examined the original deputation order, the continued linkage to the parent cadre, and held that a prolonged deputation does not automatically convert into a transfer, and the respondents were within their statutory rights to terminate it. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether a deputation exceeding the statutory maximum period converts into a regular transfer or absorption.
- Whether the borrowing authority may terminate a long‑standing deputation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation in the borrowing establishment.
Subjects
- deputation
- transfer
- regularisation
- service rules
- railway personnel
- administrative law
- writ petition
- termination of deputation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14339 of 2026
Rakesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and 4 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Maurya, Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shashi Prakash Singh (A.S.G.I.) with
Purnendu Kumar Singh
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original
Application No. 512 of 2019, whereby the OA, filed by the petitioner,
seeking quashing of the order dated 03.04.2019 putting an end to his
deputation and seeking direction to the respondents to regularize/absorb
the petitioner's lien in the Diesel Locomotive Works (DLW), Varanasi
from the due date on the post of Permanent Way Mistri (PWM), i.e.,
09.01.1997, has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner, who was working as PWM Grade - I at East Central
Railway, Mughalsarai Division, moved application requesting transfer
from Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai to DLW, Varanasi. The request was
accepted on 22.01.1997 and he was sent on deputation for three years,
however, his tenure on deputation, was extended from time to time till
03.04.2019, thereafter his deputation was put to an end.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the OA was filed with the submissions that the
petitioner was working at DLW, Varanasi for over 23 years against the
regular vacancy of PWM and his repatriation after 23 years was not
justified.
4. The respondents contested the plea raised in this regard and indicated
that the petitioner had been on deputation at DLW, Varanasi ever since
1997. The aspect of deputation was clearly mentioned at the time of the
WRIA No. 14339 of 2026
2
joining on 22.01.1997 and all his promotions, etc. during the entire tenure
had taken place at East Central Railway, wherein he was granted the post
of SSE/P.Way under the restructuring by order dated 07.07.2015. The
petitioner got the post of Junior Engineer (J.E.) in his parent cadre due to
merger/upgradation of the post of Senior Path Way Supervisor into J.E.
Based on the said submissions, it was prayed that the OA be dismissed.
5. Submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner that due to long
tenure of the petitioner at DLW, Varanasi, which was contrary to the
Master Circular providing for a maximum period of 5 years on
deputation, as the petitioner has continued on deputation for over 23
years, the same would be deemed to be a regular transfer from East
Central Railway to DLW, Varanasi and the action of the respondents in
putting purported end to his deputation was not justified.
6. The respondents reiterated the plea, as noticed hereinbefore.
7. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and referring to the judgment in
Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others : Writ - A No.
11824 of 2025, decided on 14.10.2025 of this Court, came to the
conclusion that the petitioner continued on deputation as he had earned all
his promotions at the parent cadre, the respondents were well within their
right to put an end to the deputation and consequently, dismissed the OA.
8. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions regarding
continued stay at DLW, Varanasi and contended that the same was on
transfer and was wrongly indicated as deputation. Further submissions
were made that as the petitioner is nearing superannuation, the action of
the respondents, in this regard, is not justified and therefore, the orders
impugned deserve to be set aside.
9. Counsel for the respondents supported the orders impunged.
10. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
11. A bare look at the order permitting joining of the petitioner on DLW,
Varanasi, scanned copy of which forms part of the order passed by the
WRIA No. 14339 of 2026
3
Tribunal, reveals that clear indication of appointment on deputation for a
period of 3 years was indicated and it was further stipulated that for the
purpose of his promotion, the same would be maintained in parent
Railway and that as the transfer on deputation is based on his own
request, he would not be entitled to deputation allowance.
12. Whereafter, apparently the period of deputation was extended from
time to time at the request of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that
the petitioner continued to be governed in so far as his seniority, etc. is
concerned at his parent cadre, i.e., East Central Railway, Mughalsarai,
which fortifies the fact that for all these years, the parent cadre of the
petitioner continued to remain at Mughalsarai and the claim made
regarding his joining at DLW, Varanasi on transfer is baseless and
factually incorrect.
13. Once the petitioner was sent on deputation to DLW, Varanasi, only on
account of the fact that his deputation continued for unusually long period
of 23 years, does not under any circumstance change the status from
deputation to transfer. Once it is established that the petitioner is on
deputation at DLW, Varanasi, it is well within the right of the borrowing
authority to put an end to the deputation and mere long period of
deputation and the fact that the petitioner is nearing retirement, by itself,
cannot be a reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondents as
upheld by the Tribunal.
14. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore,
dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
September 17, 2026
RK
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…