NTRO vs. Dipti Deodhare: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Ruling on Scientist's Repatriation

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) & Others vs. Dipti Deodhare, overturning a decision by the Karnataka High Court. The dispute involved the repatriation of a senior scientist from NTRO to her parent organization, the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), and whether she was entitled to pensionary benefits based on her last held position.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around the appointment and subsequent repatriation of the respondent, Dipti Deodhare, from NTRO to DRDO. Deodhare had served in DRDO since 1988 and was holding the post of Scientist ‘G’ when she applied for the post of Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO in 2018. She was selected for the NTRO position under direct recruitment and tendered her technical resignation from DRDO.

She joined NTRO as Scientist ‘H’ on probation. However, during her probation period, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) decided to repatriate her to DRDO, and she was relieved from NTRO on February 12, 2019. She subsequently reported for duty at DRDO as Scientist ‘G’. Dissatisfied with her repatriation, she challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled in favor of NTRO. She then moved the Karnataka High Court, which overturned the CAT ruling and directed NTRO to treat the repatriation as an order of discharge simpliciter, granting her pensionary benefits based on her Scientist ‘H’ position.

Petitioner’s Arguments (NTRO)

NTRO, represented by Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, argued:

Since Deodhare was appointed to NTRO on probation, she had no vested right to claim continuation in NTRO.
Her appointment in NTRO required a probationary period, and as per government rules, her repatriation to DRDO was valid and lawful.
As a probationary employee, she did not have any claim to permanent status in NTRO and thus could not demand pensionary benefits based on her NTRO position.
Government rules state that an officer reverted to their parent department cannot demand benefits based on the higher post held temporarily in another organization.
The High Court erred in treating her repatriation as an order of discharge and in granting her pensionary benefits as a Scientist ‘H’.

Respondent’s Arguments (Dipti Deodhare)

Deodhare, represented by Senior Counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued:

Since she was appointed in NTRO through direct recruitment, she could not be repatriated to a lower position in DRDO.
The concept of reversion does not apply to direct recruits; therefore, her return to DRDO as Scientist ‘G’ was illegal.
She had requested reinstatement in NTRO, which indicated her willingness to continue as Scientist ‘H’.
Even after repatriation, she sought promotion to Scientist ‘H’ in DRDO, which was denied.
She should be allowed to retire voluntarily as a Scientist ‘H’ and receive benefits accordingly.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, ruled in favor of NTRO and set aside the High Court’s decision. The key findings were:

Deodhare was appointed to NTRO on a probationary basis, and the government had the right to repatriate her if her performance was unsatisfactory.
Her lien in DRDO was protected due to her technical resignation, and she lawfully resumed her Scientist ‘G’ position in DRDO.
The High Court erred in treating the repatriation as a discharge simpliciter and in directing NTRO to grant her pensionary benefits as a Scientist ‘H’.
Since she had never completed her probation in NTRO, she had no legal right to claim pensionary benefits as a Scientist ‘H’.

The Court observed:

“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it can be seen that on and from 13.02.2019, the respondent can be said to be the employee of DRDO and in any case, she cannot be said to have been continued in NTRO.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed NTRO’s appeal and ruled:

The High Court’s order treating Deodhare’s repatriation as an order of discharge simpliciter is incorrect.
She is not entitled to pensionary benefits based on her NTRO position.
She may apply for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) from DRDO as a Scientist ‘G’, and DRDO should consider her request positively.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for government employees:

It reinforces that probationary employees do not have a vested right to claim continuation in a new department.
It upholds the principle that technical resignation protects an employee’s lien in their parent department.
It establishes that repatriation during probation is a valid exercise of executive discretion.
It clarifies that pensionary benefits should be based on a permanent position held at the time of retirement, not a temporary post.

By setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of service rules and probationary norms, ensuring that administrative decisions are not overridden based on misplaced legal interpretations.

Petitioner Name: National Technical Research Organization & Others.
Respondent Name: Dipti Deodhare.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Hima Kohli.
Place Of Incident: Bengaluru, Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 17-02-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: national-technical-r-vs-dipti-deodhare-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-02-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Hima Kohli
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category