Deputationists Have No Vested Right to Continue in Borrowing Department: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"A Deputationist Can Be Repatriated at Any Time—No Legal or Statutory Right to Remain on Deputation" – High Court Dismisses Writ and Contempt Cases. Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition and contempt case filed by a retired Head Nurse challenging her repatriation to her parent department before reaching the age of 60 years, as applicable in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner sought the continuation of her deputation at the MNJ Institute of Oncology and Regional Cancer Centre, Hyderabad, until her retirement age and claimed arrears of salary for the period from January 2015 to October 2016.

The division bench of Hon’ble Justice Sujoy Paul and Hon’ble Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani held that a deputationist has no vested right to continue in a borrowing department and that the petitioner’s repatriation was lawful under Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The Court ruled: “The petitioner had no legal, statutory, or constitutional right to remain on deputation or claim salary for the disputed period.”

Writ – Service Law – Challenged the Non-Continuance of Deputation – No Vested Right to Continue

The petitioner, who was deputed from her parent department—the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Kadapa—to the MNJ Institute of Oncology in Hyderabad, sought to remain on deputation until she reached the retirement age of 60 years in Andhra Pradesh. However, the respondents argued that the borrowing department (MNJ Institute) had the discretion to repatriate her.

Citing Kunal Nanda v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 362, the Court reiterated:

"A deputationist cannot claim a vested right to continue on deputation. Either the lending or the borrowing department has the authority to repatriate the deputationist at any time."

The Court upheld the validity of the repatriation order dated November 22, 2014, which directed the petitioner to report back to her parent department in Andhra Pradesh.

Interpretation of Section 75 – Reorganisation Act – Applicability Limited to Public Facilities

The petitioner relied on Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which provides for the continuation of facilities in institutions listed in the Tenth Schedule of the Act. She argued that this provision guaranteed her right to continue working at the MNJ Institute until the age of 60.

Rejecting this argument, the Court clarified: "Section 75 pertains to the continuation of public facilities in Tenth Schedule institutions and does not govern the service conditions of employees. The provision applies to public facilities for the benefit of people, not the service rights of individual employees."

The Court held that Section 75 was not applicable to the petitioner’s claim.

The respondents invoked Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, which governs the continuance of officers in the same post after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The proviso to Section 79 empowers competent authorities to issue specific orders affecting the continuation of officers.

The Court observed: "The repatriation order was validly issued under the proviso to Section 79, which explicitly allows authorities to pass orders affecting the continuance of officers. The petitioner’s claim for continuation lacks any legal basis under this provision."

The petitioner relied on interim orders passed by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which directed her continuation at the MNJ Institute. She argued that she was entitled to salary for the period between January 2015 and October 2016, despite her repatriation.

Rejecting this claim, the Court stated: "An interim order granted in favor of the petitioner does not create a substantive right to salary, particularly when the underlying claim is without merit. The interim protection was merely temporary and does not override the lawful repatriation order."

The Court noted that the petitioner had retired and received all retirement benefits through separate legal proceedings, and no further monetary claims were justified.

The Court dismissed both the writ petition and the contempt case, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any legal, statutory, or constitutional right to remain on deputation or claim arrears of salary.

The judgment concluded: "In view of the enabling provisions under Section 79 and the lack of any infringement of statutory rights, the petitioner’s claims are unsustainable. The writ petition and contempt case are dismissed, and no relief is granted."

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision underscores that deputationists cannot claim an indefinite right to continue in a borrowing department and that service rights must be explicitly grounded in statutory provisions. The judgment also clarifies the limited scope of Sections 75 and 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, particularly in the context of service conditions post-bifurcation.

The case serves as an important precedent on deputation law and the interpretation of interim orders, reinforcing the discretionary authority of borrowing departments and the limitations of interim relief.

Date of Decision: January 8, 2025