“Regular Service in the Grade” Extends to Service in an Analogous Post
(Commentary on Delhi High Court’s decision in Bhupinder Kumar Malik v. Union of India, 2025 DHC 6630-DB)

1. Introduction

This judgment answers a recurring but unsettled question in service jurisprudence: when an officer comes on deputation to a new cadre and is later absorbed, can the period spent in an analogous post in the parent cadre be counted as “regular service in the grade” for seniority and promotion in the new cadre?

The petitioner, Shri Bhupinder Kumar Malik, an officer of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF), was deputed and later absorbed into the Judge Advocate General (JAG) cadre. He claimed that his seniority as Judge Attorney/Assistant Commandant (JA/AC) should run from 10 July 1995 (the date he became Assistant Commandant/General Duty (AC/GD) in the parent cadre) rather than from 3 October 2003 (the date of absorption). Consequentially, he sought earlier promotion to Deputy Judge Attorney General/Deputy Commandant (Dy-JAG/DC) and further consideration for Additional JAG/Commandant (Addl-JAG/Comdt).

Respondents (Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and ITBP) resisted, asserting that “regular service in the grade” begins only from absorption; further, the posts of AC/GD and JA/AC were said to be non-analogous. The Division Bench (Hari Shankar & Ajay Digpaul, JJ.) delivered an extensive judgment clarifying the law.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Analogous nature affirmed: The Court held that AC/GD (parent cadre) and JA/AC (JAG cadre) are analogous posts—same pay-scale, same Group-“A” classification, and substantially overlapping duties under Rules 4 & 7 of the JAG Rules, 1999.
• Meaning of “regular service in the grade”: In recruitment rules that permit promotion from an absorbed/deputed position, the expression includes service rendered in an analogous post in the parent department. Seniority therefore accrues from 10 July 1995.
• Direction for review DPCs: A Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) must be convened for 2002 to assess Malik’s promotion to Dy-JAG/DC, and, if successful, a second Review DPC for 2009 to consider him for Addl-JAG/Comdt, with relaxation of eligibility norms as per extant guidelines.
• No mala fides proved: Although the Court lamented administrative apathy, the heavy burden to prove mala fides was not discharged; hence retrospective promotion as a punitive measure was refused.
• Relief limited to notional benefits: Any promotion(s) granted pursuant to the review DPC(s) will be notional, safeguarding third-party rights and financial implications.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. K. Madhavan v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 566
   · Held that “eight years’ service in the grade” for promotion within CBI includes service as DSP in State Police when posts are equivalent.
   → Court mined paras 6, 10 & 21 to analogise deputation with transfer and to stress continuity of service.
2. SI Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644
   · Struck down words “whichever is later” in a DoPT memorandum; restored counting of BSF service for seniority in Delhi Police after absorption.
   → Provided constitutional footing (Arts 14 & 16) for recognising analogous service.
3. UOI v. Pankaj Agnihotri, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2435
   · Consolidated principles from Madhavan and Rooplal; distinguished situations when deputation is not a recognised channel.
   → Bench used it to confirm applicability where recruitment rules expressly provide for deputation/absorption.
4. Mrigank Johri v. UOI, (2017) 8 SCC 256
   · Absorption on express terms sacrificing seniority binds employee.
   → Cited by respondents, but Court distinguished it because Malik’s absorption carried no such waiver.
5. Prabha Devi v. UOI, AIR 1998 SC 902, and N.R. Banerjee, KL Taneja etc.
   → Deployed to discuss (and mostly reject) plea of automatic ante-dated promotion and mala fides.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Interpretation of recruitment rules. The Court started with the text: promotion from JA/AC to Dy-JAG/DC requires “six years’ regular service in the grade”. Because “deputation/absorption” is one recognised mode of entry into the grade, the rule must be read purposively to avoid penalising those very officers whom the rule welcomes.
2. Application of DoPT OM 07-03-1984 (Criteria for Analogous Posts). All three objective yardsticks—pay-scale, classification, duties/responsibilities—were met; therefore AC/GD and JA/AC are analogous.
3. Doctrine of continuity. Drawing upon Madhavan, the Bench held that deputation amounts to transfer; transfer cannot wipe out past service in an equivalent post.
4. Constitutional equality. A contrary interpretation would deny similarly-situated deputationists the benefit enjoyed by direct-recruits and promotees, offending Articles 14 & 16.
5. Mala fides allegation rejected. The Court invoked EP Royappa and P.P. Sharma: heavy burden, need for specific pleadings, proof of personal bias/ulterior motive—none satisfied.
6. Limited scope of writ jurisdiction. Under Article 226, Court can compel consideration but normally not confer promotion; hence review DPCs directed rather than direct promotion.

3.3 Likely Impact on Future Service Litigation

• Standardised Rule-Interpretation: The judgment cements the rule that phrases like “X years’ regular service in the grade” must, in deputation/absorption cases, include analogous-post service unless expressly excluded by contractual terms.
• Administrative Discipline: Ministries/Forces will have to proactively adjust seniority lists of absorbed deputationists, or craft explicit waiver clauses (à la Mrigank Johri) if they intend otherwise.
• Review‐DPC Mechanism: The court’s meticulous directions on convening Review DPCs and granting only notional benefits offer a blueprint to balance equity of the deputationist with stability of settled promotions.
• Mala fides Threshold Reaffirmed: The decision reiterates that mere delay or bureaucratic inaction, absent direct evidence of bias, will not suffice to prove mala fides—valuable guidance for future pleadings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Analogous Post

A post in another department/cadre that matches pay-scale, classification (Group A/B etc.), and duties/responsibilities. Identified through DoPT OM 07-03-1984.

Deputation vs. Absorption

Deputation: Temporary transfer; lien retained in parent cadre.
Absorption: Permanent transfer; officer becomes part of new cadre. Often deputation precedes absorption.

Regular Service in the Grade

Uninterrupted service in a particular pay-level/post counted for eligibility and seniority. Court now clarifies it includes service in an analogous post if recruitment rules allow deputation/absorption.

Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) & Review DPC

Body that assesses fitness for promotion. A Review DPC is reconvened when original DPC omits vacancies, considers ineligible officers, or—as here—applies a wrong seniority date.

Notional Promotion/Benefits

Promotion deemed to have been granted from an earlier date for seniority/pension purposes, without back-pay—used to protect the interests of third parties.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has delivered an instructive precedent affirming that service rendered in an analogous post within the parent department counts as “regular service in the grade” after absorption, unless the officer has explicitly waived that benefit. By directing time-bound Review DPCs and limiting relief to notional benefits, the Court balances individual justice with systemic stability. The decision is likely to influence manpower planning across paramilitary forces, central police organisations and civil services where deputation-cum-absorption is common.

Prepared by: [Your Name], Legal Analyst | Date: [Auto-generated]