2020 Supreme(SC) 292

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
R. THIYAGARAJAN – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2229 of 2020 (@ SLP(C) No. 18853 of 2017)
Decided on : 03-04-2020

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Deputation envisages assignment of an employee of one department/cadre/organisation to another department/cadre/organisation in public interest – Normally deputation also involves consent of employee.
(2) High Court does not have benefit of exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Deputation – Claim for 10% deputation allowance and 25% special allowance with effect from 18.04.2008 – Deputation envisages assignment of an employee of one department/cadre/organisation to another department/cadre/organisation in public interest – Normally deputation also involves consent of employee – Till 11.09.2009 respondent continued to be under control of his parent organisation i.e. CISF and was also getting his pay and allowances from authority – Though he as a member of his Battalion may have been serving NDRF, it cannot be said that he was on deputation to NDRF – His organisation had agreed to deploy some of its Battalions with NDRF – However, administrative and disciplinary control over such employees remained with CISF – Emoluments were also paid by CISF and it cannot be said that NDRF was employer or master of respondent – In such circumstances, up to 10.09.2009 respondent could not be said to be on deputation even though as per 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 services of employee had been transferred to another department/cadre/organisation and control over employee now vests with transferee department/cadre/organisation – High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects employees of State falling within its jurisdiction but it could not have passed such an order in case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved – Respondent shall be paid deputation allowance with effect from 11.09.2009 till 07.10.2011 when he was relieved from service. [Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 5 – Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 – Rule 3] (Paras 15, 16, 18 and 19)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Power to do complete justice – Sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but High Court does not have benefit of exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over entire country whereas jurisdiction of High Court is limited to territorial jurisdiction of State(s) of which it is High Court – High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects employees of State falling within its jurisdiction but it could not have passed such an order in case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved. (Para 18)

Facts of the Case:

Respondent is employed with Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He was recruited as a constable in year 1999. On 13.01.2010, an office memorandum was issued by Director General, NDRF which provided that the Battalions of NDRF had been renamed and renumbered in the NDRF to give force a separate identity. The tenure of the respondent who had been sent to the NDRF on 18.04.2008 came to an end on 07.10.2011 when he was relieved of his duties in NDRF and repatriated to the CISF. He submitted a representation to the Director General, NDRF requesting that he be granted 10% deputation allowance and 25% special allowance with effect from 18.04.2008. Vide communication dated 23.07.2011 the respondent was informed that his case for grant of deputation allowance had been taken up with the Ministry of Home Affairs. On 31.07.2011, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras in which the prayer was that the respondent in the writ petition i.e. Union of India, Director General, NDRF and Director General, CISF be directed to pass orders on his representation dated 20.07.2020.

Findings of the Court:

Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In 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.

Result : Appeal allowed.