Supreme Court Rules on NHAI Promotion Dispute: Deputation Period and Direct Recruitment Clarified
The Supreme Court of India has delivered an important ruling in the case of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vs. G. Athipathi & Others. The case revolved around whether a period of deputation should be counted as regular service for the purpose of promotion in NHAI. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Madras High Court, ruling that the respondent’s deputation period cannot be considered for promotion since he was repatriated before his direct recruitment into NHAI.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when G. Athipathi, who had initially joined NHAI on deputation in 2008, sought to have his deputation period counted as regular service for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical). The key facts are as follows:
- Athipathi was appointed on deputation as Manager (Technical) in NHAI on May 21, 2008.
- He continued on deputation for six years before being repatriated to his parent department in Tamil Nadu on June 13, 2014.
- He later applied for a permanent post in NHAI, cleared the selection process, and was appointed as Manager (Technical) on direct recruitment basis on August 26, 2015.
- When he applied for promotion to Deputy General Manager (Technical) in 2017, his deputation period was not considered, rendering him ineligible.
CAT and High Court Rulings
G. Athipathi approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that his deputation period should be counted towards his total service for promotion. The CAT ruled in his favor, directing NHAI to count his deputation period and grant him promotion retrospectively from July 27, 2017.
NHAI challenged the CAT decision in the Madras High Court, but the High Court upheld the ruling, stating that there was no explicit requirement in the recruitment regulations that a person must be continuously in service for deputation to be counted.
Supreme Court’s Examination
The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant rules, including the National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority, and Promotion) Regulations, 1996, and a circular issued on May 22, 2017. The key arguments presented by both parties were:
NHAI’s Arguments
- As per NHAI’s promotion regulations, only those who have continuously held the post of Manager (Technical) for at least four years were eligible for promotion.
- Athipathi’s deputation ended in June 2014, and he was repatriated to Tamil Nadu. His new appointment in August 2015 was on direct recruitment, and it should be considered a fresh appointment.
- Since there was a gap of more than one year between his repatriation and direct recruitment, his previous deputation period could not be counted for promotion.
- The 2017 circular allowed deputation service to be counted for promotion only for those who were already in service and not repatriated.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Athipathi argued that he had served six years on deputation, which was more than the required four years.
- His repatriation was due to administrative reasons, and he returned to NHAI at the earliest opportunity.
- Other employees in similar situations had been granted the benefit of counting their deputation service for promotion.
- The CAT and High Court correctly ruled that there was no explicit rule requiring continuous service without repatriation.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, ruled in favor of NHAI, holding that:
1. Deputation Service Cannot Be Counted After Repatriation
The Court held that once an employee is repatriated to their parent department, their service in NHAI is effectively terminated. Any future appointment to NHAI is considered fresh employment. Therefore, Athipathi’s deputation period before June 2014 cannot be counted towards his eligibility for promotion.
2. Direct Recruitment is a Fresh Appointment
Since Athipathi was directly recruited in August 2015, his service period in NHAI should be counted from that date. This means he was not eligible for promotion in 2017 as he had not yet completed four years in the role.
3. The 2017 Circular Does Not Apply
The Supreme Court clarified that the 2017 circular, which allowed deputation service to be counted for promotion, applied only to those who were still in NHAI service at the time. Since Athipathi had been repatriated, the circular did not apply to him.
4. No Recovery of Benefits Already Granted
The Court ruled that while Athipathi’s promotion was invalid, NHAI could not recover any salary or benefits already granted to him due to the earlier CAT and High Court rulings.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled:
- The CAT and High Court decisions were set aside.
- Athipathi’s claim for promotion was dismissed.
- His deputation period would not be counted for promotion purposes.
- No recovery of benefits already paid.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications for public sector employees and deputation policies:
- Clarity on Deputation and Direct Recruitment: Employees repatriated to their parent departments cannot claim deputation benefits after direct recruitment.
- Fairness in Promotion Policies: Ensures that only employees with continuous service in a role are considered for promotion.
- Impact on NHAI Employees: Sets a precedent for similar cases within NHAI and other government agencies.
- Reinforcement of Administrative Discretion: Reaffirms that courts cannot interfere in promotion policies unless there is a clear violation of rules.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in NHAI vs. G. Athipathi provides a definitive interpretation of deputation service in relation to promotions. The decision ensures that public sector promotions are based on fair and consistent criteria, preventing employees from claiming past deputation service after a break in employment. This landmark judgment will serve as a guiding precedent for future cases involving similar disputes in public administration.
Petitioner Name: National Highways Authority of India.Respondent Name: G. Athipathi.Judgment By: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.Judgment Date: 09-12-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: national-highways-au-vs-g.-athipathi-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-12-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in Judgment by Ahsanuddin Amanullah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2024
See all petitions in 2024 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
