Punjab and Haryana HC Holds Denial of Empanelment to IAS Officer Ashok Khemka Discriminatory, Directs Parity with Similarly Situated Officers

The Division Bench found that the Union of India had repeatedly relaxed the three-year central deputation rule for other IAS officers but withheld the same benefit from Khemka without any differentiating reason.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has allowed a writ petition filed by Ashok Khemka, a 1991-batch IAS officer, holding that the Union of India's refusal to empanel him as Additional Secretary or Secretary to the Government of India violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, who authored the oral judgment, and Justice Deepak Manchanda, decided the petition on 29 May 2026. The court found that the Union had exercised its power to relax the minimum three-year central deputation requirement in favour of at least 20 other IAS officers with nil central deputation experience, yet offered no differentiating reason for denying the same relaxation to Khemka. Because Khemka has since retired, the court directed that he be treated as empanelled at the Additional Secretary or Secretary level for the purpose of future assignments only.

The Empanelment Dispute

Khemka was empanelled as Joint Secretary to the Government of India in 2010. When his 1991-batch colleagues were considered for empanelment as Additional Secretary or Secretary in 2019, the benefit was not extended to him. The stated reason was that he had not served on central deputation in the rank of Deputy Secretary or above for the minimum prescribed period of three years, a requirement that the authorities said could not be relaxed.

Khemka challenged that decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, he placed on record a list of 20 IAS officers who had been empanelled as Additional Secretary or Secretary with nil central deputation experience. He also pointed to the case of Mr. J. Radhakrishnan, a 1992-batch Tamil Nadu cadre IAS officer who, even after Khemka's claim was rejected, was granted empanelment as Additional Secretary or Secretary on 7 March 2022 despite having no central deputation experience in the rank of Deputy Secretary or above.

The Tribunal rejected Khemka's application. It held that the rules prescribed a minimum of three years of central deputation in the rank of Deputy Secretary or above as an eligibility condition for empanelment as Additional Secretary or Secretary, and that this condition could not be relaxed. The orders dated 12 July 2023, 17 July 2023, and 28 July 2023 gave effect to that conclusion. Those three orders were challenged before the High Court in CWP-21655-2023.

The Legal Question Before the High Court

The Division Bench framed the question precisely: whether empanelment as Additional Secretary or Secretary could be granted to Khemka despite the eligibility clause requiring three years of central deputation in the rank of Deputy Secretary or above.

Counsel for Khemka, Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, argued that the Tribunal had wrongly treated the three-year requirement as an absolute bar. The Union of India had already exercised its power to relax that requirement in favour of similarly situated officers, both before and after Khemka's claim was rejected. Granting the relaxation to others while withholding it from Khemka, without any valid distinguishing reason, amounted to discrimination.

The respondents, represented by Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India (who joined through video conferencing), and Ms. Neha Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, raised a threshold objection: Khemka had already retired, so the question of empanelment as Additional Secretary or Secretary no longer arose and the petition had become infructuous.

Counsel for Khemka answered that objection by pointing out that empanelment at the Additional Secretary or Secretary level is the minimum preferred qualification for various post-retirement assignments available to IAS officers. Without being treated as empanelled at that level, Khemka would be ineligible for such assignments or would be considered less meritorious than other similarly situated candidates. The issue therefore retained practical significance.

How the Bench Reasoned

The court accepted that the three-year central deputation rule existed. It also accepted that the Union of India had the power to relax that rule. The critical finding was that the Union had exercised that power repeatedly and in favour of officers who were in the same position as Khemka.

The bench reproduced the list of 20 IAS officers from Annexure P-9. Fifteen of them had been empanelled as Additional Secretary or Additional Secretary equivalent with nil central experience. Four had been empanelled as Secretary or Secretary equivalent with nil central experience. The sixteenth name on the combined list was Mr. J. Radhakrishnan, whose empanelment on 7 March 2022 came after the rejection of Khemka's own claim.

The court noted that these facts went unrebutted by the Union of India. No differentiating circumstance was placed before the court to explain why Khemka's case was treated differently from those of the 20 officers who received the relaxation.

The bench held that once the Union exercises its jurisdiction to relax an eligibility requirement in favour of similarly situated officers, the non-exercise of that same jurisdiction in a comparable case amounts to discrimination unless a valid differentiating fact exists. Since none was offered, the denial of empanelment to Khemka violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The benefit of parity had to be extended to him.

The Tribunal's approach of treating the three-year rule as an absolute bar was therefore incorrect. The Tribunal had not noticed that the rule had already been relaxed in favour of other officers, both before and after Khemka's case was decided.

The Retirement Question and the Scope of Relief

The court acknowledged the respondents' point that Khemka had retired by the time the petition was heard. Empanelment in the conventional sense — bringing an IAS officer on central deputation — was no longer possible. The bench therefore declined to direct that Khemka be treated as empanelled for the purpose of an actual deputation posting.

However, the court accepted the argument that empanelment at the Additional Secretary or Secretary level is the minimum preferred qualification for future assignments for which retired IAS officers are considered. Denying Khemka that status would continue to prejudice him in competition with other similarly situated officers who had been empanelled.

The relief was accordingly calibrated: Khemka would be treated as empanelled as Additional Secretary or Secretary with the Government of India for the purpose of consideration for future assignments only. He would stand on equal footing with other officers who hold that empanelment status when such assignments are being considered.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed CWP-21655-2023 in the terms set out above. The three Tribunal orders dated 12 July 2023, 17 July 2023, and 28 July 2023 were set aside to that extent. Any civil miscellaneous application pending in the matter was also disposed of. The judgment was delivered orally on 29 May 2026 and is marked as a speaking and reasoned order, though not reportable.