Deputationists have no vested right to extension beyond the sanctioned deputation period.

The applicant was initially placed on deputation by order dated 29 July 2021 for one year.

His deputation was extended periodically and ultimately expired on 30 July 2026 upon completion of the extended term.

The applicant previously approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 722/2026, which was disposed of on 29 July 2026 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation.

Pursuant to that direction, the respondents considered the representation and passed an order dated 30 July 2026, which the applicant challenged in the present proceedings.

The applicant contended that the decision concerning his deputation should have been taken by the Director General (Staff) under Clause (c) of the Guidelines regarding deputation of staff within the Indian Audit and Accounts Department.

Whether the non-extension of the applicant’s deputation beyond the sanctioned period required a decision by the Director General (Staff) under Clause (c) of the applicable deputation guidelines

Whether the applicant had a legal or vested right to seek continuation or extension of his deputation after expiry of the sanctioned term

Whether the impugned order dated 30 July 2026 suffered from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by the Tribunal

Clause (c) of the Guidelines regarding deputation of staff within the Indian Audit and Accounts Department provides that deputation beyond five years and up to seven years may be considered by the Director General (Staff) on a case-to-case basis, subject to specified conditions, including a request supported by the borrowing office’s no-objection certificate and cogent reasons.

The Tribunal interpreted this provision as requiring consideration by the Director General (Staff) only where an extension beyond five years is proposed, and not where the deputation is simply allowed to expire at the end of its sanctioned term.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that a deputationist has no vested right to claim extension of deputation; extension depends upon the decision of the competent authority and cannot be demanded as a matter of right.

It also held that the cited guidelines were inapplicable because the applicant was deputed from the Indian Audit and Accounts Department to the State PWD/State PHE, rather than being deputed within that Department.

The Tribunal distinguished between an affirmative decision to extend deputation and the automatic expiry of an already sanctioned deputation.

Clause (c) was held to operate only when deputation is proposed to continue beyond five years; it did not require the Director General (Staff) to pass a separate order declining extension.

Since the applicant’s deputation was sanctioned only up to 30 July 2026, it automatically terminated on that date, and no formal order of non-extension was legally necessary.

In any event, the guidelines relied upon by the applicant concerned deputation within the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and therefore did not govern his deputation to the State PWD/State PHE.

The applicant also could not claim continuation as of right because extension of deputation remained discretionary.

The relied-upon departmental guidelines were additionally found inapplicable, and the applicant was held to have no vested right to extension of deputation.

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30 July 2026, the Tribunal dismissed O.A. No. 752/2026, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also closed.