Deputation policies within the same department must avoid air-tight rigidity and reflect considerations of spouse-based hardships.

The applicant, an Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IA & AD), was posted on deputation to the Raipur office on "spouse grounds" as her husband is an Assistant Audit Officer in the same station

Although the borrowing department (Respondent No. 3) recommended an extension of her tenure, the parent department (Respondent No. 2) rejected the request and ordered her repatriation to Mumbai/Nagpur, citing a shortage of staff in the AAO cadre

The applicant challenged the rejection, noting that other colleagues were granted deputation despite the alleged staff shortage

The respondents defended the action based on a new Deputation Policy dated 27.01.2025

1. Whether the applicant can be forcibly repatriated to her parent department under the Deputation Policy dated 27.01.2025 while her spouse is posted at the current station

2. Whether the administrative grounds of "shortage of staff" justify the repatriation in light of similar cases and prevailing DoPT guidelines on spouse postings

The court relied on DoPT Office Memoranda (1986–2024) emphasizing the posting of husband and wife at the same station to ensure family welfare and gender equality

The principles from Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar (1999) regarding the consensual nature of deputation and State of Punjab v. Inder Singh (1997) regarding the expiry of deputation periods

Precedent set by the Principal Bench in OA No. 1263/2025, which held that the IA & AD Deputation Policy dated 27.01.2025 was arbitrary for imposing rigid caps on tenure without considering spouse-related hardships

The Tribunal found that deputation within the IA & AD functions as a de facto transfer mechanism since unilateral transfers were abolished in 1997. Consequently, applying rigid "deputation" rules is inappropriate.

The court noted that the 27.01.2025 policy is currently under a directive for reconsideration by the Principal Bench because it is "arbitrary, rigid, and lacks uniformity"

In the applicant’s specific case, she had only completed one and a half years of deputation, making "premature repatriation" unreasonable.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to balance administrative exigency with the constitutional and social objective of keeping families together, especially since the borrowing department still required her services

The respondents were directed to permit the applicant to continue her deputation at the Raipur office until a final decision is taken regarding the policy revisions as directed by the Principal Bench. Implementation was ordered within 60 days.