Absent formal absorption, an employee on deputation cannot claim retiral benefits of the higher centralized cadre.

The appellant was appointed as a Work Agent (Class-IV post) in Nagar Palika Parishad, Rudrapur, on 03.01.1974

In 1997, he was sent on deputation as an Executive Officer (a post under the Palika Centralized Services) at Nagar Palika Didihat

In 2012, his application for absorption into the Centralized Cadre was rejected by the Director, Urban Development, who also ordered his repatriation to his original post

The appellant challenged this rejection in WPSS No. 1104 of 2012; however, the Writ Court, vide order dated 20.11.2015, upheld the rejection, noting that the appellant lacked the required qualifications (graduation and pay scale) at the time of deputation

Having retired on 31.10.2012 during the pendency of the first writ, the appellant filed subsequent litigation (WPSS No. 1586 of 2013 and WPSS No. 2608 of 2019) seeking pensionary benefits equivalent to the post of Executive Officer, claiming parity with other regularized employees

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 06.06.2022, leading to this intra-court appeal

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to absorption in the Palika Centralized Cadre and consequent retiral benefits after his claim for regularization was previously rejected by a court order that attained finality?

2. Whether the appellant was subjected to discrimination in comparison to other employees who were allegedly regularized after retirement?

The court primarily applied the Uttarakhand Urban Development Directorate Absorption Rules, 2009, which govern the regularization of staff but do not specify the post of Executive Officer for such absorption

It further relied on the principle of Finality of Judgments, holding that a finding recorded by a writ court in inter-party litigation, if unchallenged, binds the parties in subsequent proceedings

Additionally, the court applied service law principles regarding Deputation and Absorption, clarifying that serving on deputation does not create a vested right to regularization, especially when the initial deputation was in violation of eligibility criteria

The Court reasoned that the appellant's primary claim for absorption had already been adjudicated and rejected in WPSS No. 1104 of 2012

The earlier judgment specifically found that the appellant’s deputation in 1997 was legally flawed because he was neither a graduate nor in the requisite pay scale at that time

Since that judgment was never challenged, the finding that the appellant "cannot be regularized" attained finality

Consequently, because the appellant was never a member of the Centralized Cadre, he could not claim retiral benefits admissible only to that cadre

Regarding the plea of discrimination, the Court found it "bereft of merit" because, unlike the appellant, the cited counterparts did not have prior judicial orders specifically rejecting their claims for absorption

Finally, the Court noted that the State had already calculated the appellant's pension by including his deputation period within his original non-centralized cadre service, satisfying the requirements of fairness

It held that the appellant was not entitled to absorption or centralized cadre pensionary benefits because his eligibility had been previously rejected by a competent court, and he did not meet the statutory criteria for the post

The Court also condoned the 82-day delay in filing the appeal as the explanation provided was found satisfactory

Final relief was denied, and the appellant's pension was confirmed to be payable under the non-centralized cadre