2015 (8) TMI 1581 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking release of deputation allowance payments, claimed for the period 24-07-2008 to 20- 03-2012, when he was on deputation - HELD THAT - The first contingency, i.e where an employee is deputed on an interim arrangement ( in the event of conversion of a Government office/organisation or a portion thereof into a PSU/ autonomous body or vice-versa ) cannot apply. The petitioner was not sent by way of interim arrangement in the event of any Government office getting converted into a Public Sector Undertaking or autonomous body. The respondents argument appears to be that the Force was at the stage of conversion into an autonomous body or a PSU and consequently, the Petitioner was ineligible for deputation allowance. However, there are no force in this contention. The terms PSU and autonomous body have definite connotation, and cannot be so construed to include a statutory body created under an Act of Parliament of 2005 and by way of a special force. Furthermore, the respondents also do not state anywhere that the Petitioner fulfilled the second condition, i.e deputation to the same cadre. All along the respondents plea had been that the petitioner was a deemed deputationist under Rule 3(1) and consequently disentitled to deputation allowance. The petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed, i.e. deputation allowance for the period 24- 07-2008 and 20-03-2012. A direction is issued to the respondents to ensure that the petitioner is released the deputation allowance and connected monetary benefits which he was entitled to for the said duration of time he spent in the force, within six weeks from today. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: The petitioner seeks directions for the release of deputation allowance payments claimed for a specific period while being on deputation.

Summary:
The petitioner, an employee of the Central Industrial Security Force, was sent on deputation to the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and sought deputation allowance payments for the period 24-07-2008 to 20-03-2012. The petitioner approached the court after the Force rejected his request for deputation allowance, citing the rescission of an earlier order. The petitioner argued that under Rule 3 of the Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008, deputation allowance was admissible to personnel sent on deputation. The respondents contended that the petitioner, being deputed after 2008, should be treated as a deemed deputationist and was not entitled to deputation allowance as per the rescinded order.

The court analyzed Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008, distinguishing between personnel deputed before and after the rules were framed. It was observed that those deputed after the rules came into force were covered under Rule 3(2) and were eligible for deputation allowance. The court emphasized that the Force is a borrowing organization for personnel with specific expertise in disaster management, and the terms of the deputationist's permanent employment are crucial. The court found the respondents' reliance on a specific term in an official memorandum irrelevant to the case and held that the petitioner was entitled to the claimed deputation allowance for the mentioned period. A direction was issued to release the allowance and related benefits within six weeks.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the eligibility for deputation allowance based on the timing of deputation and the specific expertise required by the Force, directing the respondents to release the claimed allowance and benefits.