Ashok Khemka Entitled to Additional Secretary Status: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Denial of Empanelment Despite Relaxations Granted to Others Violates Articles 14 and 16

Case Name: Ashok Khemka v. Union of India and Another

Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026

Citation: CWP-21655-2023

Bench: Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that once the Union of India had repeatedly relaxed the requirement of three years’ Central deputation experience for similarly situated IAS officers while granting empanelment as Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India, denial of the same relaxation to IAS officer Ashok Khemka amounted to discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court directed that Khemka be treated as empanelled as Additional Secretary/Secretary for future assignments where such empanelment is a relevant consideration.

Summary: Senior IAS officer Ashok Khemka challenged orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting his claim for empanelment as Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India. The Tribunal had upheld the Government’s decision on the ground that Khemka did not fulfil the requirement of having served on Central deputation for a minimum period of three years at the level of Deputy Secretary and above.

Before the High Court, Khemka argued that the condition was not being uniformly applied. He produced records showing that numerous IAS officers, including officers with no Central deputation experience whatsoever, had been granted relaxation and were empanelled as Additional Secretary or Secretary to the Government of India. He further pointed out that even after rejection of his claim, another IAS officer had been granted similar relaxation and empanelment.

The Union of India contended that Khemka had already retired and therefore the issue had become academic. However, Khemka submitted that empanelment continued to have significance for appointments, committees, commissions, and other post-retirement assignments where empanelment as Additional Secretary/Secretary is treated as a preferred qualification.

The High Court observed that the requirement of three years’ Central deputation experience was capable of being relaxed and had in fact been relaxed on multiple occasions in favour of similarly situated officers. The Court noted that the Government failed to rebut the examples cited by the petitioner or explain why he alone was denied similar treatment.

According to the Court, when a discretionary relaxation has consistently been granted to officers placed in identical circumstances, denial of the same benefit without any distinguishing factor amounts to hostile discrimination and violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.

Decision: Allowing the writ petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Ashok Khemka could not be denied parity with other IAS officers who had been empanelled after relaxation of the deputation requirement. Since Khemka had already retired, the Court clarified that no actual Central deputation could now be granted. Nevertheless, it directed that for future assignments, appointments, or positions where empanelment as Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India is a relevant criterion, Khemka shall be treated as having been empanelled at that level and considered on an equal footing with similarly situated officers.