JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - C.M. Appln. No. 21712/2020 (of the petitioners for early hearing)

1. Further proceedings in the writ petition were adjourned sine die vide order dated 25th March, 2019 awaiting the outcome of a matter entailing the same issue, pending in the Supreme Court.

2. This application has been filed stating that the Supreme Court, vide Union of India Vs. R. Thiyagarajan,2020 SCCOnLineSC 349, has decided the issue.

3. The counsel for the applicants/petitioners and the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice, on enquiry state that in terms of the judgment aforesaid of the Supreme Court, the petition has to be decided and can be decided today itself.

4. The application is allowed and disposed of. The writ petition, with the consent of the counsels, is ordered to be taken up for hearing today itself.

W.P. (C) No. 1854/2017

5. The 216 petitioners filed this petition (a) impugning the order dated 12th January, 2017 of the respondent no.3 Director General, National Disaster Response Force (NDRF); and, (b) seeking mandamus to the respondents NDRF to pay deputation allowance to the petitioners.

6. The petition was entertained and pleadings therein ordered to be completed. However thereafter, as aforesaid, the petition was adjourned sine die awaiting decision by the Supreme Court in a matter arising from the High Court of Madras and entailing the same issue.

7. The Supreme Court now, with respect to the petitioners before the High Court of Madras, has held that the entitlement to deputation allowance is w.e.f. 11th September, 2009 and till the date the petitioner therein was relieved from service.

8. The counsel for the petitioners states that this petition be also disposed of directing the respondents to pay deputation allowance to each of the petitioners, w.e.f. 11th September, 2009 and till the date each of the petitioners was relieved from service.

9. The counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to para 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. It appears that the High Court of Madras, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner before it, instead of confining the relief to the writ petitioner before it, issued a direction for payment of deputation allowance to all those similarly placed as the petitioner therein. On grievance with respect thereto being made before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, in para 18 of its judgment held that the High Court of Madras indeed exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing direction for the entire country, while its jurisdiction was limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State of which it was the High Court and could not have passed a general direction, as was done. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the said direction of the High Court of Madras and the appeal of the Union of India before the Supreme Court was allowed to the said extent.

10. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that out of 216 petitioners who have jointly filed this petition, most of them are admittedly posted in different parts of the country and are not entitled to relief from this High Court.

11. The said contention is to be recorded to be rejected. It is not stated that this Court does not have jurisdiction. On enquiry, it is also stated that no such plea has been taken in the counter affidavit.

12. Since the respondents are admittedly situated at Delhi, certainly the petitioners, wheresoever they may be posted, were/are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and the respondents/Government of India cannot so compel, particularly the servicemen/ex-servicemen, to file separate petitions in different High Courts, wheresoever they may be posted, for recovery of their dues and to their expense and inconvenience. Also, the respondents/Government of India itself keeps on posting the said officials/personnel from place to place and it will be ridiculous to say that the petitions filed in one High Court would become infructuous on the petition