Order quashing teacher's rationalization and salary withholding while deputation extension was under active consideration.

The applicant, a General Line Teacher, was deputed to the Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Art, Culture and Languages (Respondent No. 3) in November 2023.

His deputation was extended until March 2025, and a further request for a one-year extension was under active Government consideration as of June 2025.

While this was pending, Respondent No. 4 (CEO, Doda) issued Order No. CEO/D/2248-2253 on 19.06.2025, "rationalizing" the applicant to another school and withholding his salary and Children Education Allowance w.e.f. 01.03.2025.

The Education Department contended the applicant failed to submit his Service Book and ignored a recall order dated 19.05.2025.

Respondent No. 3 confirmed the applicant was never relieved and continued to discharge duties at the Academy.

1. Whether the order of rationalization and withholding of salary issued by the parent department (Respondent No. 4) is legally sustainable while the applicant’s extension of deputation is under active consideration and he has not been relieved by the borrowing department?

The Court applied the principles of administrative law governing deputation and inter-departmental protocol under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The core principle established is that a parent department cannot unilaterally treat an employee as unauthorizedly absent or "rationalize" their posting when the borrowing department has formally requested an extension that is under active government consideration and the employee has not been formally relieved of their duties.

The Tribunal examined the conflict between the Education Department’s recall order and the Academy’s retention of the applicant, noting that the applicant continued to work with Respondent No. 3, supported by official duty slips.

The Academy explicitly admitted they had not relieved him because an extension request dated 02.04.2025 was pending.

The Tribunal reasoned that since inter-departmental correspondence regarding the deputation was ongoing and the applicant was physically discharging his duties at the assigned Academy, the parent department (CEO, Doda) acted prematurely.

Issuing a rationalization order and withholding salary without finalization of the deputation status was deemed an unsustainable exercise of administrative power.

The Court quashed Order No. CEO/D/2248-2253 dated 19.06.2025.

The Original Application was disposed of in favor of the applicant, effectively requiring the respondents to acknowledge the period of service at the Academy and resolve the salary grievances.