P&H HC Restores State Commission Secretary Sent Back To Stenographer Post After 18 Years, Finding No Proof His Posting Was Temporary

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Scale Stenographer in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, in 1997.

In 2003, he was transferred “in public interest” to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab; the transfer order did not specify deputation, a fixed tenure, retention of lien, or a condition of repatriation.

He was subsequently promoted in the State Commission as Senior Scale Stenographer, Judgment Writer and Secretary, the latter appointment being notified in the Punjab Government Gazette.

In 2021, he was repatriated to the District Commission on the ground that he remained its employee and had served in the State Commission against ex-cadre posts.

His challenge to that order was followed by a further order rejecting his request for relief; the petitioner then sought judicial review of both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Under State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 372, deputation is ordinarily a temporary transfer outside an employee’s cadre, with the employee returning to the parent establishment when the deputation ends.

Palure Bhaskar Rao v. P. Ramaseshaiah, (2017) 5 SCC 783, distinguishes a transfer simpliciter from recruitment by transfer; determining the nature of an employee’s movement requires consideration of the governing rules and the actual transfer order.

A draft regulation does not constitute an enforceable service rule unless it has acquired legal force.

Although genuine repatriation of a deputationist is not, by itself, punishment under Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, the authority must first establish that the employee was serving on deputation or under a temporary arrangement.

The Court found that the 2003 order transferred the petitioner to the State Commission without describing the arrangement as deputation, fixing its duration, or reserving a right of repatriation.

The respondents identified no applicable rule or contemporaneous order establishing that his posting was temporary or ex-cadre, despite his nearly 18 years of service and successive promotions in the Commission.

The respondents’ reliance on alleged defects in his qualifications or promotions did not establish that the original transfer was temporary; nor could an unnotified draft regulation supply the necessary legal basis.

The Court also held that the later order did not substantively address the claim for consequential relief following exoneration and repeated the unsubstantiated premise underlying the repatriation order.

It directed the respondents to restore the petitioner to the position he occupied in the State Commission immediately before repatriation, with continuity and consequential service benefits to be determined as if the impugned order had not been passed.

No recovery was to be made of salary or other monetary benefits already paid for service actually rendered; the directions were to be implemented within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.