THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.Nos.26747 and 27141 of 2009 Date: 01.03.2011 WP No.26747 of 2009: Between: Smt. K. Ratna Prabha .. Petitioner AND Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Min. of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi and 3 others .. Respondents WP No.27141 of 2009: Between: Smt. K. Ratna Prabha .. Petitioner AND Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Min. of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi and 3 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.Nos.26747 and 27141 of 2009 COMMON ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): Since the issue and the parties involved in both the writ petitions are same and the writ petitions arise out of the common order, they are heard and being disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ petitions are filed seeking to issue an order, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the common order dated 30.11.2009 passed in O.A. Nos.577 of 2007 and 157 of 2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, respectively. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is an IAS (Indian Administrative Service) Officer belongs to Karnataka cadre. She joined the service in the year 1981. Since her husband is also an IAS officer of Andhra Pradesh cadre, she sought for inter state deputation to the State of Andhra Pradesh from Karnataka during the year 2004. Her request was considered by the first respondent-Union of India, through notification dated 04.02.2004 and deputed her to the State of Andhra Pradesh for a period of three years. Accordingly, she joined duty in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 11.02.2004. The three years period is to be reckoned from the date of joining. b) Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka as well as the Government of Andhra Pradesh recommended for extension of deputation by a period of two years. On the basis of said two recommendations, the petitioner made a representation dated 17.03.2007 to the first respondent requesting to extend her deputation by two more years. However, her request was rejected by the first respondent, through order dated 10.08.2007. Aggrieved by the same, she filed O.A.No.577 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. c) While the matter stood thus, on 06.11.2008 the petitioner again made a representation before the first respondent to consider her case for extension of deputation by three more years stating that her husband belongs to Andhra Pradesh cadre; that to look after her ailing mother and her children, who are studying in Andhra Pradesh and that any separation from her family would cause great hardship to her and her family. Both the State Governments have also once again recommended for further extension of her deputation. d) The petitioner made another representation to the first respondent on 12.01.2009 furnishing the details of various officers who have been on deputation beyond the period of five years and requested that her case also be considered on similar lines. However, the first respondent rejected her request, through proceedings dated 25.02.2009. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, she filed another O.A.No.157 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. e) The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, after considering the entire material on record, dismissed both the above said OAs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed these two writ petitions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the officers similarly situated are working on the inter cadre deputation beyond the period of five years, the first respondent cannot discriminate the petitioner for extending the same benefit to her. He further submitted that even otherwise the petitioner may be granted some time to go back to her parent cadre i.e., Karnataka State in the circumstances explained by her. 6. Per contra, the learned Advocate General vehemently contended that as per the new policy decision of the Government of India, inter-cadre deputation will be available to the officers only after completion of nine years in his/her cadre and before reaching the super-time scale in his/her home cadre; that the total allowable period of inter-cadre deputation will be five years in the entire career of the officer; that in view of the said policy decision, officers in the rank of super-time scale (Secretary to Government) and above are not eligible for inter-cadre deputation; and that the inter cadre deputation is valid only for the period for which it is allowed by the Central Government and any extension is neither automatic nor should it be presumed. He further contended that the petitioner without approval of the first respondent and only basing on the interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos.577 of 2007 and 157 of 2009 is continuing on inter-cadre deputation in the State of Andhra Pradesh since 11.02.2004 till date and she has completed more than five years of inter-cadre deputation. However, the said OAs were dismissed on 30.11.2009. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is not considered for further extension of her deputation. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate General relied on two decisions viz., i) Kunal Nanda v. Union of India[1] and ii) Union of India v. Mamta Anurag Sharma[2]. 7. A perusal of the guidelines for the All India Services with respect to Rule 6 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, clearly shows that tenure of deputationist to be applicable is maximum period of 5 years, provided that the officer has completed 9 years in his own cadre and has not reached the Super-time Scale. Further, in view of the new policy decision of the Central Government, officers in the rank of super-time scale like the petitioner herein and above are not eligible for inter- cadre deputation. 8. In Kunal Nanda’s case (stated supra), the Supreme Court observed that the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation. It was further observed that the reference to the decision reported in Rameshwar Prasad v. M.D. U.P., Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.,[3] is inappropriate since the consideration therein was in the light of the statutory Rules for absorption and the scope of those Rules. I n Mamta Anurag Sharma’s case (stated supra), the Supreme Court observed that in view the above policy decision, there was no question of directing the Central Government to consider the case of the first respondent for her transfer to Andhra Pradesh IPS cadre and in paras 10 & 11 the Supreme Court observed as follows: “10. This aspect is reiterated in the counter-affidavit filed by the Director (Police), Ministry of home Affair, Government of India, New Delhi. In para 15 of the affidavit, it has been specifically stated as under: ‘… Under the extant policy, that at least 66 2/3% of the members of the all-India service in a State cadre should be from outside the State, inter-cadre transfer of all-India services officers to their home State is not allowed on the ground of marriage. To the respondent’s knowledge no all- India services officer has been transferred to his/her home State on the ground of marriage after coming into effect of the revised guidelines dated 19.9.1995 relating to inter-cadre transfer of all-India services officers.’ 11. In para 16, it is further reiterated that no all-India services officers have been allowed inter-cadre transfer to his/her home State on the ground of marriage. Further, it has been pointed out that the policy of the Central Government with regard to inter-cadre transfer of all-India services officers does not permit inter-cadre transfer to the home State on the ground of marriage and the said policy has not been reviewed and revised vide communication dated 19.9.1995; the guidelines relating to inter-cadre transfer of all-India services officers reviewed and revised by the communication dated 19.9.1995 only provide for grounds on which the all-India services officers are allowed inter-cadre transfers.” 9. It is to be noticed that under the fundamental rights and policy decision of the Central Government, the maximum period of inter-cadre deputation of IAS officers is five years only and beyond five years, nobody has any vested right to continue on inter-cadre deputation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined duty in the State of Andhra Pradesh as inter-cadre deputation on 11.02.2004 and five years period is elapsed by 2009. Therefore, there is no discrimination in respect of the petitioner as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The Central Administrative Tribunal elaborately dealt with the issue in question at length and rightly came to a conclusion that there is no discrimination against the petitioner because she was allowed inter-cadre deputation within a few months of her completing central deputation in Andhra Pradesh and she was allowed to go on inter-cadre deputation even though she was in the super-time scale. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also settled legal position, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.11.2009 passed in OA Nos.577 of 2007 and 157 of 2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and it does not warrant any interference of this Court. Therefore, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall leave her present place of posting cadre i.e., in the State of Andhra Pradesh before the end of April, 2011. No order as to costs. __________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 01.03.2011 Isn [1] (2000) 5 SCC 362 [2] (2001) 8 SCC 129 [3] (1999) 8 SCC 381 = 2000 SCC (L&S) 60