CHANDIGARH (08.06.2026): A unique decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court has brought the spotlight on the empanelment process of the Government of India for holding posts of Additional Secretaries and Secretaries. The HC decision has vindicated the cause for what the whistle-blower bureaucrat Ashok Khemka (Retd IAS: 1991: HY) was fighting for when the court ruled that the IAS officer should be treated as empanelled to hold Additional Secretary and Secretary-level posts for any future assignments.
The verdict has many consequences and bearings not only on his matter but on many other officers who had already retired and many others who are yet to retire but facing similar kind of arbitrariness. The verdict chastises the random application of service rules, giving a new milestone to Khemka’s decades-long crusade against systemic anomalies.
The Rule vs Relaxation Debate:
Khemka, who superannuated on April 30, 2025, had moved to the High Court after being denied empanelment by the Centre. The government’s refusal was predicated on technical grounds as Khemka did not meet the mandatory criterion of having served on central deputation for a minimum three years at the level of deputy secretary and above.
However, Khemka’s petition exposed a glaring double standard within the bureaucratic corridors as he argued that several IAS officers with "nil" experience on central deputation at those specific ranks were granted relaxations and were empanelled as additional secretaries.
The Core Contention: Khemka challenged why a rule strictly enforced to block his career progression was routinely relaxed for his peers.
A Relentless Legal Battle:
The HC ruling effectively sets aside three orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in July 2023. The tribunal had previously dismissed Khemka’s pleas to be considered empanelled at the additional secretary/secretary level prior to his retirement.
Known for his uncompromising stance on corruption—which famously resulted in over 50 transfers during his 3-decade career—Khemka's legal victory serves as a significant precedent for bureaucratic accountability.
By directing that he be treated as empanelled for future assignments, the High Court has ensured that retirement does not draw the curtain on the veteran bureaucrat's utility to public service, or his fight against institutional bias. The most important aspect of it is that it gives hope to serving officers being victim of such technicalities.
