1 CGHC010287412026 2026:CGHC:34727-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5993 of 2026 1 - Comptroller And Auditor General Of India Through Its Deputy Comptroller And Auditor General (Dy. C A G), Human Resource (H R) Office Of The Comptroller And Auditor General Of India, Pocket 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi- 110124 2 - Principal Accountant General (A & E)- I, Maharashtra 2nd Floor, Pratishtha Bhawan, New Marine Lines 101, Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai - 400020 3 - Principal Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh 2nd Floor, Audit Bhawan, Zero Point, Opposite Vidhan Sabha, Raipur - 492005 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Roshni Sharma W/o Sh. Rohit Sharma Aged About 34 Years Working As Assistant Account Officer At Raipur Office Of The Principal Accountant General ( A & E ) Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492005 R/o J/ 2 Shivaji Park Vidhan Sabha Road, Saddu, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492005 --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS system) _________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate _________________________________________________________ BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.08.2026 1. Facts relevant for disposal of this case are that respondent is holding the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and presently working on deputation under respondent No.3 at Raipur. Her posting was done on spouse ground on deputation from 02.01.2024 to 01.01.2025. After completion of her term, respondent had further applied for extension of her deputation period. The petitioner No.3 vide letter dated 19.11.2024 has forwarded the case of respondent with the recommendation that her services are required in this office, however, petitioner No.2 has turned down the request of respondent vide letter dated 04.04.2025 citing the reason that due to shortage of staff, the deputation cannot be extended further for an unlimited period as per the new deputation policy but provided her limited extension till 30.06.2025 and repatriated the respondent back to her parent office in and asked her to report in the parent office on latest by 01.07.2025. Thereafter, vide office order dated 15.04.2025, petitioner No.3, relieved respondent w.e.f. 30.06.2025 requiring her to comply with the repatriation order and to join the parent office at Nagpur. Being aggrieved with the order of repatriation dated 04.04.2015 and 15.04.2025, respondent filed Original 3 Application bearing O.A. No.200/679/2025, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 12.05.2026 allowed the original application filed by respondent setting aside the orders dated 04.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 by which respondent was repatriated to the office of petitioner No.2 from the office of petitioner No.3, and allowed the respondent to continue to work on deputation till such time the decision in pursuance to the directives of Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi with respect to the reconsideration of the policy dated 27.01.2025 is taken. While passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has taken note of the judgment dated 15.04.2026 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1263 of 2025 and other connected matters, whereby the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, directed the respondents therein to reconsider the policy dated 27.01.2025, particularly with regard to the deputation of employees within the Department. Being aggrieved with the order of CAT dated 12.05.2026, petitioners/department have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus quashing the impugned order dated 12/05/2026 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal 4 Jabalpur (Jabalpur Bench) in O.A. No. 200/679/2025, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondent to comply the order dated 04/04/2025 & 15/04/2025 issued by the Petitioner No. 02 & 03, to meet the ends of justice. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Nande appearing on behalf of petitioners would submit that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law, facts and settled principles of service jurisprudence. He contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the settled principles governing the scope of judicial review in service matters and has exceeded the permissible limits of judicial interference while examining an administrative decision taken by the competent authority. It is further contended that matters relating to transfer, posting and other administrative arrangements fall within the exclusive domain of the employer, and the Tribunal ought not to substitute its own view for that of the competent authority unless the impugned action is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, violation of statutory rules, or patent arbitrariness. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the repatriation of the respondent was effected solely on account of the shortage of employees. Such an administrative decision, having been taken in the exigencies of service and in the interest 5 of the administration, ought not to have been interfered with by the Tribunal. He further submits that the order of deputation of the respondent specifically stipulates that the deputation arrangement shall remain operative only for the approved period and shall not confer upon the respondent any right to permanent absorption or automatic extension of the deputation period. It is contended that the order dated 15.04.2026 of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1263 of 2025 was challenged by the petitioners/Department before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 6894 of 2026. Upon consideration of the issues raised by the petitioners, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide order dated 18.05.2026. He further submits that on 13.07.2026 W.P.(C.) No. 6894 of 2026 came up for hearing before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi along with other connected matters and vide order dated 13.07.2026, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petitions, observing that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing reconsideration of the 2025 Policy and set aside the order dated 15.04.2026 of CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. He next contends that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary and unreasonable and suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6 3. Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, opposes the petition and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supports the impugned order. He submits that husband of respondent is working as Assistant Audit Officer in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and is presently posted under the petitioner No.3. It is contended that the decision of the petitioners/Department to repatriate the respondent to her parent department is due to mala fide intention and is not supported by the reason assigned for such repatriation because on one hand one Smt. Sakshi, working as an Assistant Audit Officer in the Nagpur Office, has recently been sent on deputation, while one Smt. Geeta R. Shankar has been continuing on deputation since 06.07.1998. He further submits that reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is misplaced, as the said judgment is limited to setting aside paragraph 72 of the judgment passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. He further submits that, in paragraph 29 of its final judgment dated 13.07.2026, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has clarified that transfers effected pursuant to the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009 on spouse grounds would not be covered by the said decision. He submits that posting of respondent is not a deputation in the strict sense; rather, it is a deputation in the nature of a transfer. He further submits that, in their reply to the Original Application, the 7 petitioners have not disputed the fact that similarly situated employees are still continuing on deputation for long time. He submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C.) No. 6894 of 2026 is distinguishable, as the employees in that case had completed seven years on deputation and were affected by the 2025 Deputation Policy. In the present case, the respondent was deputed on spouse grounds under the DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2009 and had not completed seven years. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. 4. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent was sent on deputation to the office of petitioner No. 3 on spouse grounds for the period from 02.01.2024 to 01.01.2025. However, within a short span of about one and a half years, she was directed to be repatriated to her parent office at Nagpur, citing shortage of staff in the Accounts Cadre as the reason for such repatriation. It is also not in dispute that husband of respondent is posted as Assistant Audit officer in the very same office of Accountant General (Audit), Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 6. The petitioners have placed on record the Policy of 2025 as Annexure P-4. A perusal of the policy shows that it applies to employees who have already completed more than seven years on deputation. The said policy does not specifically talks of 8 regarding the employees who have been posted on deputation on spouse grounds in terms of the DOPT Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009. 7. In the present case, the respondent had not completed seven years on deputation. Her posting was also admittedly made on spouse grounds, and her husband is serving in the same Department. Therefore, the case of the respondent stands on a different footing from the cases of employees who had already completed seven years on deputation and whose cases were directly governed by the revised policy. 8. The contention of the petitioners that the repatriation was necessitated by shortage of staff also requires consideration in the light of the material placed before the Tribunal. The respondent has specifically pointed out that, despite the alleged shortage of staff, similarly situated employees have continued on deputation and that one Smt. Sakshi was also recently sent on deputation, while Smt. Geeta R. Shankar has continued on deputation since 06.07.1998. Significantly, the petitioners have not disputed the continuance of such employees on deputation. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in examining whether the reason of shortage of staff, by itself, was sufficient to justify the respondent's repatriation. 9. It is true that deputation, transfer and posting are ordinarily matters within the administrative domain of the employer and the Court or Tribunal should not ordinarily interfere with such 9 decisions. However, where an administrative decision is challenged on the ground that the applicable policy and the state is expected to treat the employees in the with fairness, Court can interfere in the challenges made on arbitrariness which is the case here and the employees can legitimately expect the employer to consider their grievances and disclose them the reasons. The order which is brought in record does not record any reason for non extension and any violation of 2025 policy. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that the respondent’s case was considered on spouse grounds under the DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2009. He was also unable to point out any pleading or material on record explaining why similarly situated employees have been treated differently. Further, he could not point out any provision in the applicable policy which bars consideration of the respondent’s case under the DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2009. 10. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment dated 13.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C.) No. 6894 of 2026 is misplaced. The said judgment was rendered in the context of employees who had already completed seven years on deputation and were affected by the revised Policy, 2025. The present case stands on a different footing, as the respondent was posted on deputation on spouse grounds pursuant to the DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2009 and had not completed seven years on deputation. It is further relevant that, 10 while setting aside the direction issued by the Principal Bench of the CAT, New Delhi, for reconsideration/re-framing of the policy, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has clarified that the said decision would not come in the way of the respondents therein seeking the benefit of the DoPT O.M. dated 30.09.2009, which specifically deals with postings on spouse grounds. Thus, the said judgment does not bar consideration of the respondent’s case under the said O.M. 11. It is relevant that the local office of the petitioner had initially forwarded and recommended the Respondent’s claim for extension of deputation, which was sought bona fide on spouse grounds. However, without any administrative exigency or objective evaluation, the Head Office subsequently raised an objection and abruptly ordered the repatriation of the Respondent. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and has not committed any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from any patent illegality, perversity or error apparent on the face of the record. 13. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is based on a proper appreciation of the facts and the applicable rules and does not 11 call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition has no merit, which is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Balram