Service Law – Deputation – Claim for deputation allowance – The respondent was employed with Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 1999 – The appellant-Union of India constituted a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 – The Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 were enforced with effect from 11.09.2009 – After, the enforcement of Rules, the various Central Para Military Forces including CISF were sent to the NDRF and re-named as NDRF Battalions and their control vested with the NDRF from 11.09.2009 and the Battalions drew their pay and allowances from 11.09.2009 from the NDRF – The tenure of the respondent sent to the NDRF on 18.4.2008 came to an end on 07.10.2011, when he was relieved from his duties in NDRF and repatriated to the CISF – Respondent sought grant of deputation allowance and filed writ petition before the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court not only granted deputation allowance but also granted special allowance – The Division Bench of the High Court held that respondent was only entitled to deputation allowance and not any special allowance and went on to hold that not only respondent but all other personnel of the NDRF drawn from other forces from 19.01.2006 upto 13.01.2013 were entitled for deputation allowance – On appeal, held: In the instant case, the respondent continued to be under the control of his parent organization i.e. CISF till 11.09.2009 and was also getting his pay and allowance from the said authority – Therefore, though he may have been serving the NDRF, it cannot be said that he was on deputation to the NDRF – The term deputation is loosely used but for payment of deputation allowance it must be shown that the services of the employee had been transferred to another department/cadre/organization and the control over the employee now vests with the transferee department/cadre/organization – However, on 11.09.2009, the date when the Ministry of Home Affairs conferred the command and control of the Battalions drawn from various Central Para Military Forces with the Director General, NDRF and from the said date these personnel drew their pay from the NDRF they would be deemed to be on deputation with the NDRF – Therefore, respondent directed to be paid deputation allowance with effect from 11.09.2009 till 07.10.2011 when he was relieved from the Service – Besides, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in the present matter – The Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire Country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State of which it is the High Court – The High Court may be justified in passing an order when it only affects the employees of its State, but it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions were involved.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. As far as the present case is concerned, till 11.09.2009 the respondent continued to be under the control of his parent organisation i.e. CISF and was also getting his pay and allowances from the said authority. Therefore, though he as a member of his Battalion may have been serving the NDRF, it cannot be said that he was on deputation to the NDRF. His organisation had agreed to deploy some of its Battalions with the NDRF. However, the administrative and disciplinary control over such employees remained with the CISF. The emoluments were also paid by the CISF and, therefore, it cannot be said that the NDRF was the employer or master of the respondent. In such circumstances, up to 10.09.2009 the respondent could not be said to be on deputation even though as per the Rules he may have been described as a deputanionist. This term has been very loosely used but for payment of deputation allowance it must be shown that the services of the employee had been transferred to another department/cadre/organisation and the control over the employee now vests with the transferee department/cadre/organisation. However, on 11.09.2009, the date when the Ministry of Home Affairs conferred the command and control of the Battalions drawn from the various Central Para Military Forces with the Director General, NDRF and from which date these personnel drew their pay from the NDRF they would be deemed to be on deputation with the NDRF. [Para 16][154-D-H]
2. This Court also is of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, in opinion of this Court, it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved. [Para 18][155-C-F]
Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar (1999) 4 SCC
659 : [1999] 3 SCR 752; Prasar Bharti v. Amarjeet Singh (2007) 9 SCC 539 : [2007] 2 SCR 160 –
relied on.
Brij Bhushan v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No.2532 of 2012) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.