Central Administrative Tribunal
DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH vs ACCOUNTS OFFICE on 27 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00638/2026
This, the 27th day of October, 2026
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Deepak Kumar Singh, aged about 41 years, s/o Sri Rajesh Bahadur Singh, R/o Dekahi, District- Pratapgarh.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava.
VERSUS
1. The Director General (Staff), O/o The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Accountant General (Audit-I), Karnataka, Audit Bhawan-I, D. Devaraj Urs Road, Bengaluru.
3. The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), U.P. 15-A, Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Audit Bhawan, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
4. The Principal Accountant General (Aduit-II), U.P. TC-35-V- 1, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
5. Senior Audit Officer (Administration), Office of Accountant General (Audit-I), Karnataka, Audit Bhawan-I, D. Devaraj Urs Road, Bengaluru.
6. Deputy Accountant General (Administration), Office of Accountant General (Audit-I), Karnataka, Audit Bhawan-I,
D. Devaraj Urs Road, Bengaluru.
7. Deputy Accountant General (Administration), Office of The Principal Accountant General (Audit-II), U.P. TC-35-V-1, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
…..Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Anurag Srivastava.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Through this OA, applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) To issue an appropriate order or direction thereby setting aside the impugned communicating letter 22.9.2026 issued by the Senior Auditor Officer i.e. opposite party no. 5 as contained in Annexure-1 to the original application whereby the applicant’s request for extension of deputation has been rejected.
b) To issue an appropriate order or direction thereby setting aside the impugned consequential relieving/repatriation order office order no. Sa.Pra.Ma.Le.(Le.P.-II)/Pra.Sa.277/Khand-V/129 dated 23.9.2026 issued by the opposite party no. 7 as contained in Annexure-2 to the original application by means of which the applicant in pursuance to the impugned letter dated 22.9.2026 has been relieved.
c) To issue an appropriate order or direction thereby directing the opposite party no. 2 to reconsider the applicant’s request for extension of deputation from 24.09.2026 to 23.09.2027 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after taking into consideration the grievance raised by the applicant vide his representations.
d) To issue a suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.
e) To award the cost of this Original Application.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant pressed for interim relief and submitted that till disposal of the O.A., opposite parties may be directed to permit the applicant to continue at the borrowing office at Lucknow.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents have filed objections against interim relief through M.A. No. 3014 of 2026. Further argued that applicant has already been relieved vide order dated 23.09.2026 after completion of his deputation tenure and a deputationst has no right to extend his period, hence, question for interim relief does not arise.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant would be happy and satisfied if he is permitted to file fresh representation stating all the facts and competent authority may be directed to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.
Further argued that till disposal of the fresh representation, respondents may also be directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant.
6. To this, learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed, however, submitted that in case the applicant’s representation is directed to be decided in the manner suggested then for the same at least two weeks’ time may be allowed.
7. Keeping in view the innocuous prayer made by the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of finally, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the applicant to prefer fresh representation stating all the facts within one week from today and respondents/ competent authority shall consider and decide the said representation of the applicant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant forthwith. Till the decision on the representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. There is no order as to costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)
Member (J)
JNS Jay Narayan Singh Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Singh Date: 2026.10.28 13:17:49 +05'30'