Deputation extension is not automatic, but spouse-posting requests require reasoned consideration under applicable instructions.

The applicant, an employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, was deputed to the office of respondent No. 2 at New Delhi for an initial period of one year. She sought continuation, relying on her husband’s posting in New Delhi, their infant child, and applicable spouse-posting instructions.

Respondent No. 2 recommended extending her deputation for one year, citing satisfactory performance and the office’s need for her services, but respondent No. 3 declined the extension on administrative grounds and sought her repatriation.

During the proceedings, the Delhi High Court set aside an earlier Tribunal judgment disapproving that policy, while preserving employees’ liberty to seek consideration under the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 30 September 2009 on spouse postings.

Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to continuation or extension of her deputation at New Delhi beyond the approved period

Whether the applicant’s individual request, including her spouse-posting circumstances, should be considered by the competent authority under the applicable policy and instructions following the Delhi High Court’s judgment

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an employee has no absolute or indefeasible right to continue on deputation beyond the period sanctioned by the competent authority; however, a request for extension must be considered in light of relevant facts and circumstances and the applicable policy and instructions.

The High Court preserved employees’ liberty to seek the benefit of the DoPT OM dated 30 September 2009 concerning spouse postings, without expressing a view on whether that benefit was available in any particular case.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant was entitled to an extension. It held that deputation could not be claimed as of right, but that the applicant’s request required consideration against the governing policy and relevant circumstances.

Because the High Court had upheld the 27 January 2025 policy while expressly leaving open the applicant’s ability to seek consideration under the spouse-posting OM, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent authority to assess the individual claim in the first instance.

The Tribunal therefore left the merits to that authority rather than deciding whether the reasons given for refusing extension were sufficient.

The applicant was directed to submit a detailed representation, with supporting documents and judgments, within two weeks of receiving the order. The competent authority must consider it under the Revised Deputation Policy, applicable DoPT instructions, the Delhi High Court judgment, and other relevant circumstances, and issue a reasoned, speaking order within two months of receiving the representation.

No order as to costs was made.