IMPORTANT POINT
Reduction in Foreign Allowance must adhere to the terms and conditions of deputation, and any deviation from such terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties is not permissible.

JUDGMENT :

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.

1. Heard the petitioner in-person and Dr. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent and perused the records available before us on this writ petition.

CHALLENGE: -

2. By instituting the proceedings of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 1st August 2013 passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as “the CAT”), whereby Original Application No. 98 of 2011 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner sought review of the impugned judgment and order dated 1st August 2013, which too stands dismissed by the CAT by means of the order dated 22nd August 2014. This order passed by the CAT is also under challenge in this writ petition.

4. The order dated 4th September 1995 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, whereby the rate of Foreign Allowance admissible to employees working on deputation in Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation Programme (ITEC), Maldives was revised and it was decided that such deputationists shall be paid a sum of Rs. 40,845/- if they were drawing pay above Rs. 3000/- per month instead of Rs. 50,340/- as admissible to Second Secretary level officer working in the Indian Mission in Maldives, is also under challenge in this petition.

5. The further prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is that appropriate direction or order may be issued to the respondent quashing the order dated 10th January 2001, whereby the claim of the petitioner to pay Foreign Allowance of Rs. 50, 340/- has been rejected. It is also the prayer made by the petitioner that a direction may be issued to the respondent to pay him the withhold amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- along with interest.

FACTS IN BRIEF: -

6. This case presents before us a chequered history of litigation, wherein the petitioner is engaged since the year 2000. The petitioner, who was a member of Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS), was appointed on deputation on the post of Deputy Director (Administration) to Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital at Male (Maldives) [hereafter referred to as “IGMH at Male (Maldive)”] by means of an order dated 2nd September 1993. The said hospital was being run by the Government of India as a goodwill gesture to the Government of Maldives under the ITEC programme. The order of appointment of the petitioner on deputation dated 2nd September 1993 provided that the period of deputation shall be three years and that he shall be paid pay of Rs. 3100/- per month in the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-4500. In addition to the pay in the said pay-scale, the order of deputation also provided that the petitioner shall be paid compensatory allowance of Rs.15,485/- per month, which included certain components. The order of deputation also provided that all other terms and conditions of deputation will be those contained in Annexure III to the letter of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, dated 2nd February 1987 as amended from time to time.

7. Apart from providing the terms of deputation in the order of appointment dated 2nd September 1993, the Ministry of External Affairs issued a letter dated 4th October 1993 to the petitioner forwarding therewith the terms and conditions for his deputation under the ITEC programme to the IGMH at Male (Maldives). The letter dated 4th October 1993 contained an enclosure, wherein certain facilities, to which the Government of Maldives had agreed to provide to the deputationists from India, were set out. In clause (6) of the said enclosure appended to the letter dated 4th October 1993, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner having been appointed on deputation to Maldives shall be entitled to free supply of electricity and rain/desalinated water and ground water. Clause (1) of the said enclosure also provided that the deputationists from India (like the petitioner) shall be ent