Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory

"Once, the Union of India exercises jurisdiction to relax the requirement... and such relaxation was even exercised in favour of similarly situated IAS Officers, the non-exercise of the same will surely amount to discrimination," Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that the Union of India cannot selectively deny the relaxation of empanelment rules to an IAS officer when similar benefits have been extended to several other officers.

A division bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda observed that such selective application of rules violates the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that in the absence of any differentiating facts, the benefit of parity must be granted to prevent prejudice.

The petitioner, Ashok Khemka, a 1991-batch IAS officer, had approached the High Court challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which rejected his plea for empanelment at the level of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India. The primary grievance was that while the petitioner was denied empanelment due to a lack of three years of central deputation experience, numerous other officers with "nil" central experience had been granted relaxations and empaneled.

The primary question before the court was whether the benefit of empanelment could be granted to the petitioner despite an eligibility clause requiring three years of central deputation. The court was also called upon to determine if the non-grant of relaxation to the petitioner, while granting it to similarly situated officers, amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.

Tribunal Erred In Ignoring Previous Instances Of Rule Relaxation

The court noted that the Central Administrative Tribunal had rejected the petitioner’s claim solely on the grounds that the rules required a minimum of three years of central deputation at the level of Deputy Secretary and above. The Tribunal held that such rules could not be relaxed. However, the High Court observed that the Tribunal failed to notice that the Union of India had, in fact, exercised its jurisdiction to relax these very rules for at least 20 other IAS officers.

Court Notes Parity In Granting Empanelment With Nil Central Experience

The bench highlighted that the petitioner had provided a list of 15 IAS officers who were empaneled as Additional Secretary and 4 officers empaneled as Secretary despite having "nil" central experience. Furthermore, another officer from the 1992 batch was granted similar relaxation even after the petitioner’s claim had been rejected in 2021. The Court remarked that these facts remained unrebutted by the Union of India.

Selective Application Of Rules Violates Articles 14 And 16

The Court held that once the government decides to relax a mandatory requirement for one set of officers, it cannot arbitrarily deny the same to another similarly situated officer without showing a valid differentiating factor. The bench observed that the non-exercise of the power to relax the rule in the petitioner's case, while favouring others, "will surely amount to discrimination."

"The non-exercise of the same will surely amount to discrimination, unless and until any differentiating fact is brought to the notice of the Court which exist between the petitioner herein and the other Officers, who have been granted relaxation."

Lack Of Differentiating Factors Mandates Benefit Of Parity

The Court emphasized that since no specific facts were brought forward to distinguish the petitioner's case from those who received relaxations, the state's action was unsustainable. The bench noted that such an approach violates the right to equality in public employment. To ensure no prejudice is caused, the court ruled that the petitioner must be granted parity with his peers who were empaneled through exemptions.

Empanelment Necessary For Future Assignments Post-Retirement

Addressing the respondent's argument that the petition was infructuous since the petitioner had already retired, the Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel. It was noted that empanelment is a preferred requirement for various post-retirement assignments. Without this status, the petitioner would remain ineligible or less meritorious compared to his peers for future roles.

"The petitioner will be treated on equal footing to such Officer and will be treated as empaneled as Additional Secretary/Secretary with the Government of India for such consideration for the future assignment only."

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal. While acknowledging that the petitioner has retired and cannot be brought on deputation now, the Court directed that he be treated as empaneled for the purpose of future prospects and assignments. This ensures that the petitioner is placed on equal footing with other empaneled officers for any future considerations.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026