Deputation within same UT and Department does not require employee consent absent statutory rule.

The applicant, Bharat Bhushan Sharma, an SP in the Jammu & Kashmir Police Department, was deputed to the Prisons Department via Government Order No. 200-Home of 2025, dated 15.04.2025, while serving in JKAP –7th Battalion (Security).

The applicant challenged this deputation, arguing it was made without his explicit consent, which he contended was legally required.

He initially filed O.A. No. 485/2025, which led to an order dated 23.04.2025, directing the respondents to consider his representation in light of Khurshid Ahmad Khan vs. UT of J&K (O.A. No. 195/2024).

Following non-compliance, he initiated contempt proceedings.

Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 issued Government Order No. 553-Home of 2025, dated 20.11.2025, rejecting his representation and upholding the deputation.

The respondents argued that the deputation was an administrative exigency, made after due process and nomination by the Police Headquarters, and that Article 52-C of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956, read with Schedule XVIII, does not mandate prior consent for deputation within the same Union Territory.

The Finance Department and the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs concurred with this legal position.

Whether Government Order No. 200-Home of 2025 deputing the applicant to the Prisons Department without his explicit consent is legally valid.

Whether Government Order No. 553-Home of 2025, rejecting the applicant's representation against the deputation, is legally valid.

The court primarily applied Article 52-C of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956, and the standard terms and conditions for deputation as envisaged in Schedule XVIII, which govern deputation cases within or outside the State/UT, or to other Governments.

This provision does not stipulate the requirement of prior consent from an employee for deputation to another department within the same Union Territory.

The court also highlighted the settled legal principle that transfer and deputation are incidents of service and that courts typically do not interfere unless there is a clear violation of a statutory rule or proven mala fides.

The court analyzed the applicant's claim that his deputation without consent was illegal by examining the relevant legal provisions.

It noted that the deputation was within the same Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, and both the Police and Prisons Departments fall under the Home Department.

Crucially, the court found no specific rule in Article 52-C of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956, or Schedule XVIII that mandated prior consent for intra-UT deputations.

This interpretation was supported by the opinions of the Finance Department and the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs.

The court distinguished the applicant's case from Khurshid Ahmad Khan v. UT of J&K, as the latter involved deputation outside the UT of J&K to the UT of Ladakh, which is governed by different guidelines.

The court concluded that the deputation was an administrative act, necessitated by the repatriation of another officer and carried out after due process and consultation with various departments.

No mala fides or punitive intent were established, and the applicant's rank, pay, and seniority remained unaffected.

The Tribunal held that Government Order No. 200-Home of 2025, dated 15.04.2025, and Government Order No. 553-Home of 2025, dated 20.11.2025, were legal and valid.

The applicant failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory rule or infringement of his rights.

The Tribunal found no merit in the claim that prior consent was required for deputation within the same Union Territory under the same administrative department, as such a requirement is not stipulated in Article 52-C of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956, or Schedule XVIII.