NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA  Vs D.D. PARLAWAR

W.P. (C) 5 51/2021 1 of 2
$~Suppl. -2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 551/2021 & CM APPLs. 1456 -1458/2021

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ….. Petitioner
Through Mr.Nikhil Goel with Mr.Vinay
Mathur, Advocates.

versus

D.D. PARLAWAR ….. Respondent
Through Mr.S.K.Gupta with Ms.Shubhi
Srivastava, Advocates.

% Date of Decision: 25th January, 2021

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN , J (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders da ted 03:
rd
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CAT has failed to
understand the true nature of ‘deputation’ inasmuch as during the deputation
period, the officer holds lien on the cadre post in parent department and the
said recruitment cannot be taken as regular service until the officer is
‘absorbed’ in the deputation post.
September, 2020 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT] in OA
Nos.3315/2019 and 876/2020 whereby the respondent’s applications have
been allowed and he has been deemed to be eligible for consideration for
promotion to the post of Deputy Ge neral Manager.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused
2021:DHC:282-DB W.P. (C) 5 51/2021 2 of 2
the paper book, this Court finds that the respondent was an Assistant
Engineer, who had been sent on deputation to NHAI as ‘Manager’ on 13th
October, 2013. He was absolved in the said post on 12th
4. In the impugned order, CAT has relied upon its previous order,
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.9227/14
wherein it was held that the e xperience of an officer in the post of Manager
– whether on promotion or on deputation – must be taken into account for
the purpose of determining the eligibility of promotion. Further the
petitioner itself has issued a Circular dated 22 October, 2018.
Next promotion was to the post of DGM and an advertisement was issued in
Feb 2019 for the same. However, the respondent was not considered, as
according to petitioner, he did not have five years regular service in the post
of Manager.
nd May, 2017 in terms of the
aforesaid judgment as well. Learned counsel for the respondent has handed
over a copy of the Circular dated 22nd
5. In view thereof, the present impugned order calls for no interference
in the writ jurisdict ion. Accordingly, the writ petition along with pending
applications are dismissed. May, 2017, which is taken on record.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 25, 2021
KA

2021:DHC:282-DB