Deputation



Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 2229 of 2020 (SLP (c) 18853 OF 2017  titled UOI v/s R. Thiyagarajan dated 03.04.2020 has relied upon the following judgment on 

 WHAT IS DEPUTATION?

1. Umapati Choudhary v/s State of Bihar, (1999) 4 SCC 659, wherein this Court held as follows:
“8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of   an   employee   (commonly   referred   to   as   the deputationist) of   one department or cadre or even an organisation   (commonly   referred   to   as   the   parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing   authority).   The   necessity   for   sending   on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the   services   of   his   employee   and   a   corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also   involves   the   consent   of   the   employee   to   go   on deputation   or   not.   In   the   case   at   hand   all   the   three conditions were fulfilled….”

2. In Prasad Bharti v. Amarjeet Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 539, this Court held thus:

“13. there exists a distinction between “transfer” and “deputation”. “Deputation” connotes service outside the cadre   or   outside   the   parent   department   in   which   an employee   is   serving.   “Transfer”,   however,   is   limited   to equivalent   post   in   the   same   cadre   and   in   the   same department. Whereas deputation would be a temporary phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the opposite indications.
xxx xxx xxx
17.  It has not been disputed that the functions of the Central   Government   have   been   taken   over   by   the Corporation in terms of Section 12 of the Act, when the Corporation   has   started   functioning   on   and   from   the appointed day. It requires manpower for managing its affairs. It has been doing so with the existing staff. They are being paid their salaries or other remunerations by the Corporation. They are subjected to effective control by its officers. The respondents, for all intent and purposes, are therefore, under the control of the Corporation.
xxx xxx xxx


20.  The concept of control implies that the controlling officer must be in a position to dominate the affairs of its subordinate.   It   unless   otherwise   defined   would   be synonymous   with   superintendence,   management   or authority to direct, restrict or regulate. It is exercised by a superior authority in exercise of its supervisory power. It may amount to an effective control, which may either be de facto or remote….”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Registered Document is presumed to be valid unless otherwise proved

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...
Read more

Whether is was any reason explained to pass the order by authority

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...
Read more

Registration of Court Decree Mandatory or not

CA No.6835/2009 Titled Gurcharan Singh & Ors v/s Angrez Kaur & Ans dated 19.03.2020 held Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 709. In Bhoop Singh (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18:- “16. We have to view the reach of clause (vi), which is an exception to sub-section (1), bearing all the aforesaid in mind. We would think that the exception en grafted is meant to cover that decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does not by itself create new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or upwards. Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in the decree or order. 17. It would, therefore, be the duty of the court to examine in each case whether the parties have pre-existing right to the immovable property, or whe...
Read more