Employee on deputation lacks vested right to stay, but medical and matrimonial grounds merit consideration for posting.

The applicant, a Master in the School Education Department (parent department) aged 57, was serving on deputation as an Assistant Warden in the Tribal Affairs Department

The Tribal Affairs Department issued Order No. TA-ACCT/15/2025-03TAD dated 09.04.2026, directing her relieving to rejoin her parent department

The applicant challenged this order on the grounds of chronic medical conditions (spinal disc and cardiac ailments, including recent surgery in February 2025) and matrimonial status, as she is married in Jammu but originally hails from Kashmir

She sought a lien shift to Jammu and a stay on her repatriation

The respondents argued that a deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation indefinitely

1. Whether the order repatriating the applicant to her parent department was illegal, arbitrary, or in violation of previous judicial directions and principles of natural justice

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a posting within Jammu based on medical and matrimonial grounds

The Tribunal considered the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, specifically Section 19 regarding the jurisdiction to challenge service orders

It implicitly applied the established administrative law principle that an employee does not possess a vested legal right to remain on deputation indefinitely

Furthermore, the court considered the government’s discretionary power to post employees based on administrative exigencies, balanced against humanitarian considerations such as the medical condition of the employee and marriage-related transfer policies

The Tribunal evaluated the competing interests of administrative authority and the applicant’s personal hardships. While acknowledging the respondent's legal stance that deputation is not a permanent right

the Tribunal noted the significant medical evidence presented, including the 2016 Standing Medical Board certificate and the 2025 surgical intervention for Lumbar Endoscopic Decompression

The Tribunal reasoned that while the repatriation order itself might not be inherently illegal, the applicant’s specific circumstances—her health status and residency in Jammu due to marriage—warranted a humanitarian approach by the parent department (Education Department) to ensure she is posted in a location that does not aggravate her condition or cause undue marital separation

The Court held that the applicant should be suitably posted against an available vacancy in Jammu in her parent department

The respondents were directed to complete this exercise within four weeks, and a status quo regarding her current position was ordered to be maintained until the representation is decided