NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs. G ATHIPATHI AND OTHERS

 

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The present case revolves around the eligibility criteria for promotion within the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The core issue pertains to whether an employee who had served on deputation and was later directly recruited into the same organization could claim the benefit of his past deputation service for promotion. The respondent had served on deputation as a Manager (Technical) with the NHAI but was repatriated to his parent department before later rejoining the appellant organization through direct recruitment. Subsequently, he applied for promotion to Deputy General Manager (Technical) but was denied eligibility due to not meeting the minimum four-year service requirement.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court of Judicature at Madras ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that his deputation service should be counted towards his eligibility. However, the Supreme Court reversed these findings, stating that the respondent’s deputation service could not be considered for promotion since he had been repatriated to his parent department before rejoining as a fresh recruit. The Court emphasized that the Recruitment Regulations and the Executive Committee’s Circular did not allow counting past deputation service once the employment had been formally severed. The appeal was allowed, and the CAT and High Court rulings were set aside.

Keywords:

Promotion criteria, Deputation service, Direct recruitment, National Highways Authority of India, Eligibility for promotion, Minimum service requirement, Repatriation, Central Administrative Tribunal, Recruitment Regulations.

B) CASE DETAILS

  • i) Judgement Cause Title: National Highway Authority of India v. G Athipathi and Others
  • ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14100 of 2024
  • iii) Judgment Date: 09 December 2024
  • iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
  • v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
  • vi) Author: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
  • vii) Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 520 : 2024 INSC 943
  • viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
    • National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority, and Promotion) Regulations, 1996
  • ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None specifically overruled.
  • x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
    • Service Law
    • Administrative Law
    • Employment Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case revolves around the promotion policies in government organizations, particularly within NHAI. The dispute arose when the respondent, after serving on deputation, was repatriated to his parent department and later reappointed via direct recruitment. The crux of the matter was whether his previous deputation tenure should be counted towards the minimum experience required for promotion. While lower forums ruled in favor of the respondent, the Supreme Court ultimately clarified that service regulations do not permit carrying forward deputation service once an individual has been formally repatriated and later appointed afresh.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. Initial Deputation & Repatriation:

    • The respondent was originally employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Government.
    • He was sent on deputation to NHAI as Manager (Technical) from 21.05.2008 to 13.06.2014.
    • After serving six years, he was repatriated to his parent department.

  2. Direct Recruitment & Fresh Appointment:

    • While still serving his parent department, he applied for direct recruitment in NHAI for the same post.
    • He was selected and rejoined NHAI on 26.08.2015 as a fresh recruit.

  3. Promotion Application & Rejection:

    • In 2017, NHAI invited applications for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical).
    • The minimum eligibility requirement was four years of continuous service as Manager (Technical).
    • Since his fresh appointment was in 2015, NHAI rejected his application.

  4. Tribunal & High Court Rulings:

    • The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled in favor of the respondent, directing NHAI to count his deputation service.
    • The Madras High Court upheld CAT’s decision.

  5. Supreme Court Decision:

    • The Supreme Court held that deputation service could not be counted after repatriation.
    • The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal and High Court rulings.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether past deputation service can be counted towards promotion eligibility after repatriation and rejoining via direct recruitment.
  2. Whether a break in service (between deputation and direct recruitment) nullifies prior experience for promotion purposes.
  3. Whether the Recruitment Regulations and Circulars support the Tribunal and High Court’s interpretation.

F) PETITIONER (APPELLANT) ARGUMENTS

  1. The Recruitment Regulations mandate four years of continuous service—which the respondent did not meet after his fresh appointment in 2015.
  2. The Circular does not recognize deputation service post-repatriation.
  3. A break in service of more than one year invalidates past service for promotion.
  4. Three other officers who benefited from the Circular never left NHAI, whereas the respondent was repatriated before rejoining through direct recruitment.

G) RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT NO. 1) ARGUMENTS

  1. His deputation tenure should be considered part of continuous service, fulfilling the four-year requirement.
  2. He rejoined NHAI at the first opportunity available, showing intent of continuity.
  3. Other similarly placed individuals were granted promotion under the same Circular.
  4. The interpretation suggested by NHAI was discriminatory and arbitrary.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

  1. Past deputation service cannot be counted for promotion unless explicitly provided for in rules.
  2. A fresh appointment nullifies previous service for seniority purposes.
  3. The respondent’s break in service prevents counting of deputation tenure.
  4. NHAI’s rejection of the respondent’s promotion was valid and justified.

b. OBITER DICTA

  1. Promotions in service law must adhere to written regulations and cannot be assumed based on past tenure.
  2. The intention of the Circular was to provide benefits to existing deputationists, not those who left and later rejoined.

c. GUIDELINES

  1. Deputation service cannot be counted for promotion if an employee has been repatriated and later reappointed as a fresh recruit.
  2. Eligibility for promotion should be strictly based on existing Recruitment Regulations.
  3. A gap in service, unless explicitly condoned, nullifies the continuity of employment.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court clarified service law principles regarding deputation and promotion, emphasizing that past deputation service does not automatically qualify an employee for promotion after a break in service. This judgment reinforces a strict interpretation of recruitment and promotion rules within government bodies.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

  1. National Highways Authority of India v. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (2016 SCC OnLine Del 2698)
  2. Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2006) 8 SCC 129]

Important Statutes Referred

  • National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority, and Promotion) Regulations, 1996
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture