Deputationalists lack the legal right to resist premature repatriation or seek specific military allowances not applicable to the borrowing department.

The applicant, a Major in the Indian Army (Respondent Nos. 3 & 4), was selected for deputation to the post of Under Secretary with the Press Council of India (Respondent No. 2) via a memorandum dated 16.08.2024.

He joined on 13.09.2024. Following a request for premature reversion on 06.12.2024—which he claims to have withdrawn the next day—the Respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 09.12.2024 repatriating him to his parent cadre.

The applicant challenged this repatriation, seeking reinstatement to complete his three-year tenure, payment of various allowances (technical, ration, and transfer grants), and ₹50 lakhs in compensation for harassment.

Procedurally, the applicant had already rejoined his parent department on 10.12.2024 prior to the final hearing.

1. Whether the applicant has a legal right to insist on the continuation of his deputation tenure despite a repatriation order issued without assigned reasons.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to technical and ration allowances from the borrowing department, and compensation for alleged delays in salary and transfer grant settlements.

The terms of the Appointment Memorandum dated 16.08.2024, which stipulated that an officer may be repatriated "at any time without assigning any reason".

DoP&T O.M. No. 6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay-II) dated 17.06.2010, specifically Clause 9 regarding notice for repatriation, and Clauses 7.2 and 7.6(a), which prohibit the grant of parent-cadre-specific allowances (such as technical or ration allowances) if they are not admissible to regular employees of the borrowing department.

The Tribunal noted that although Clause 9 of the DoP&T guidelines suggests notice is ordinarily required for repatriation, the specific terms of the applicant's offer letter allowed for summary repatriation.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant had already rejoined his parent cadre, he could not, as a matter of right, demand to be sent back to a borrowing department.

Regarding allowances, the Tribunal found that "Technical Allowance" is restricted to officers in technical branches/duties, which the applicant's administrative role as Under Secretary did not entail.

"Ration Allowance" was deemed inadmissible as it is not provided to regular Under Secretaries in the Press Council.

The delay in "Composite Transfer Grant" and salary was attributed to the applicant’s failure to submit proper documentation and the time required for inter-departmental clarification (LPC issuance) rather than administrative malice.

The prayer for reinstatement was rejected as the applicant had already rejoined his parent cadre.

The claims for technical and ration allowances were denied based on DoP&T regulations and the nature of the post.

Regarding the transfer grant and technical arrears, the Tribunal noted that partial payments had been made and the remainder would be processed upon submission of complete documentation. No costs or compensation were awarded.