The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the absorption of four officers from the Haryana Development and Panchayat Department into the Public Works Department (Building & Roads), holding their absorption to be “illegal, non est and void” and directing that they be repatriated to their parent department.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the judgment in a batch of civil appeals arising from a long-running dispute concerning the deputation, absorption and seniority of four officers—Pradeep Atri, Praveen Chaudhary, Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia—in the PW(B&R) Department. The judgment was pronounced on August 18, 2026.
The Court held that the deputation of Pradeep Atri and Praveen Chaudhary was illegal, while the deputation of Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia was irregular. More importantly, it held that the subsequent absorption of all four officers as Assistant Engineers (Civil)/Sub-Divisional Engineers (Civil) in the PW(B&R) Department was illegal and void.
The Supreme Court directed the State of Haryana to repatriate all four officers to the Development and Panchayat Department, where their cadre and seniority are to be determined by the competent authority. The Court directed that they be placed immediately above those candidates who were junior to them in the seniority of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj) cadre.
The Court also set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision insofar as it had allowed the four officers to continue in the PW(B&R) Department despite finding their deputation and absorption legally unsustainable.
The dispute arose from the deputation of officers serving in the Development and Panchayat Department to the PW(B&R) Department and their subsequent absorption there as Assistant Engineers/Sub-Divisional Engineers.
The controversy also involved their placement in the seniority list vis-à-vis officers who had entered the PW(B&R) Department through direct recruitment. The High Court had held in March 2023 that their deputation and absorption were bad in law, but had nevertheless allowed them to continue in service in view of the fact that they had been serving in the department for many years.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach.
A significant part of the judgment concerned the effect of prolonged service after an appointment that was contrary to the applicable service rules.
The Court held that where an appointment is illegal from its inception, the illegality cannot be cured merely because the employee has continued in service for a long period. It specifically rejected the High Court's sympathetic approach based on the officers having served for more than 18 years.
The Court observed that an illegality arising from violation of the applicable 1965 service rules cannot be regularised merely through the passage of time or by subsequently resorting to absorption through appointment by transfer.
In examining Pradeep Atri's case, the Court noted that he had sought deputation directly from the PW(B&R) Department while he was still on probation in his parent department.
The Court found that there was no requisition from the PW(B&R) Department seeking officers on deputation at the initial stage and that Atri's parent department had not forwarded his name. According to the Court, the manner in which the process was initiated was contrary to the basic principles governing deputation.
The judgment further noted that Atri, along with Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia, subsequently participated in a regular recruitment process for the PW(B&R) Department but did not find their names in the select list. Praveen Chaudhary did not participate in that recruitment process.
The officers' absorption had been sought to be justified under Rule 10 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, which permits appointment by transfer in “special circumstances” with the approval of the Public Service Commission.
The State had relied, among other things, on an acute shortage of Sub-Divisional Engineers and the qualifications and experience of the officers to justify their absorption.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the validity of the absorption. In relation to Pankaj Gaur and Arun Bhatia, the Court expressly upheld the finding that their absorption was contrary to Rule 10. It also referred to the High Court's finding that the absorption process was the result of political influence.
The record before the Supreme Court also contained internal departmental observations questioning the absence of “special circumstances” and describing the process as a “pick and choose” exercise.
The officers had also challenged restrictions placed on their seniority vis-à-vis direct recruits.
However, after holding their absorption illegal and ordering their repatriation, the Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to examine their seniority under Rule 12(5) of the 1965 Rules in the PW(B&R) Department.
The Court clarified that once the officers are repatriated, their lien in the parent department would stand revived, and their cadre and seniority there would be dealt with by the competent authority.
Setting aside the High Court's protection granted to the four officers, the Supreme Court directed their repatriation to the Development and Panchayat Department and disposed of all the connected civil appeals.
The judgment was authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, with Justice Manoj Misra concurring. The decision was pronounced in New Delhi on August 18, 2026.
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjuman Tripathy, AOR Mr. Bijender Chahar, A.S.G. Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Adv, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Ms. Preetika Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Chugh, Adv. Mr. Chritarth Palli , AOR Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR Ms. Anchal Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Aman Qayoom Wani, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr Chritarth Palli, AOR Mrs Harsheen Palli, Adv. Mr Agam Aggarwal, Adv. Mr Rajat Gupta, Adv. Ms Deveshi, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma , AOR Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR Ms. Anchal Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Aman Qayoom Wani, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Birendra Chahar, Sr. Adv. Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Anjuman Tripathy, AOR Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr Anjuman Tripathy, AOR Mr Mohit Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr Navdeep Singh, Adv. Mr Ashwin K, Adv. Mr Anisha Chauhan, Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy