Implied Consent to Deputation via Unprotested Joining Precludes Subsequent Challenge to Posting Beyond Parent Cadre

The petitioners were Class IV (Tech) employees of Durgapur Projects Limited (DPL), appointed between 1994 and 2012

In December 2022 and January 2023, DPL issued orders placing 102 employees, including the petitioners, on deputation to the Office of the District Controller – Food and Supplies, Purba Bardhaman

This redeployment was part of a State-level policy to utilize surplus manpower, as several DPL plants had closed or become inoperative since 2015 due to financial crisis and lack of orders

The petitioners joined their new postings without protest and drew salaries for nearly two years before filing these writ petitions in 2024 to challenge the deputation orders

1. Whether a workman of DPL can be transferred on deputation to another government organization in the absence of an express provision in the Standing Orders

2. Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging the deputation orders after joining the service without protest for a period of two years

Clause 10 of the Standing Orders of DPL, which permits transfers between shifts, sections, departments, or establishments of the Company, provided emoluments and basic conditions of service are not adversely affected

The Supreme Court precedent in Kavi Raj and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 526, which established that while an employee generally cannot be posted beyond their cadre without consent, such consent need not be express or written but can be implied from the conduct of the employee, such as joining the post without contest

Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey (2025) SCC OnLine SC 556 regarding the requirement for petitioners to approach the Court with clean hands

The Court observed that DPL was facing a severe "moribund condition" with excess manpower becoming a "huge financial burden" following the closure of its Coke Oven Group of Plants

The Court noted that the Standing Orders do not expressly prohibit deputation

The impugned orders ensured the petitioners retained their pay, scale, deputation allowances, medical facilities, and promotional eligibility, thus satisfying the safeguard in Clause 10 that service conditions must not be "adversely affected"

Applying the principle from Kavi Raj, the Court found that by reporting for duty and accepting salaries for two years without objection, the petitioners’ "consent is tacit and unquestionable"

The delay of two years in filing the petition while enjoying the benefits of the posting was viewed as an attempt to frustrate the Company's rationalization scheme

The High Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed W.P.A. No. 28623 of 2024 along with the connected writ petitions