P.C. WADHWA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 05-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
84 
P.C. WADHWA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS 
March 5, 1981 
[ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ. ] 
All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960-
Rule 2{b)-Scope of-1.P.S. Officers on deputation, if entitled to get deputation 
allowance-Absence of provision for payment of deputation allowance in Pay and 
Cadre Rules, whether amounts to a bar to the receipt of deputation allowance. 
Rule 2 of the All Jndia Services (Conditions of Service--Residuary Matters) 
Rules, 1960 empowers the Central Government to make regulations to regulate 
any matters relating to conditions of service of persons appointed in an All India 
Service for which no provision is made in the rules under the All Jndia Services 
Act, 1951; and until such regulations are made, such matters shall be regulated, 
in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a State, by the 
rules applicable' to officers of the State Civil Service, Class I. By an order issued 
in 1963 the then Punjab Government ordered that officers of the State holding 
Class I posts would be entitled to deputation allowance at the rates mentioned 
in para (i) (c) (ii) of the Order. By the application of the Punjab Reorganisa-
tion Act this order became applicable to officers 'erving in the State of 
Haryana. 
The appellant was an officer belonging to the Indian Police Service. His 
services were placed at the disposal off the State Electricity Board to work as a 
Vigilance Officer, a post which was declared equivalent in status and responsibili-
ties to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, held by him under the 
State Government. The order of deputation passed by the Governor, while 
protecting the pay and other allowances received by him in the cadre post, did 
not however mention anything about the payment of deputation allowance to 
him. 
The appellant claimed deputation allowance under Rule 2(b) of the Resi-
duary Rules. But his representation had been rejected by the State Government. 
He then moved the High Court for the issue of a writ; but that petition was 
dismissed in limine. 
Before this Court the appellant contended that he had a statutory right to 
get deputation allowance as provided in Rule 2(b) of the Residuary Rules. 
Allowing the appeal 
HELD : Rule 2(b) of the Residuary Rules expressly applies to officers of 
All India Services on deputation. [87 GJ 
\ 
P.C. WADHWA v. HARYANA (Pazal Ali, J.) 
85 
I. The substratum of Rule 2(b) is that an officer of the All India Services 
on deputation would be entitled to deputation allowance equivalent to:'.that given 
to Officers of the State Civil Service Class I. This Rule, read in'conjunctioniwith 
para (i) (c) (ii) of the Order issued by the erstwhile Punjab Government, mani-
festly entitles the appellant to draw deputation allowance at the rates mentioned 
in the Order. [87 H] 
2. There is nothing in either Rule 6 of the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 or in 
Rule 9 of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 which debars an I.P.S. Officer from getting 
any deputation allowance when he was on deputation to any of the authorities 
mentioned in Rule 2(i) of the Cadre Rules. The mere absence of a provision for 
payment of deputation allowance in the Cadre Rules or Pay Rules cannot 
be interpreted to mean an absolute bar to the receipt of such deputation 
allowance if other rules permit such a course of action. Rule 9 of the 
Pay Rules only protects the salary admissible to I.P.S. Officers on deputation. 
Sub-rules 1 to 6 of Rule 9 of the Pay Rules do not prohibit payment of deputa-
tion allowance to officers. What the proviso to sub-rule 6 does is that it protects 
the pay and allowances of an officer on deputation so that he is not adversely 
affected in his emoluments while on deputation. In the absence of any express 
rules made by the Central Government on the subject the Residuary Rules would 
apply. [89D-G] 
3. There is no substance in the argument of the Board that since the terms 
of deputation sanctioned by the Governor did not speak of payment of deputa-
tion allowance to the appellant, the order of deputation should be read as a modi-
fication made by the Central Government to Rule 2(b) of the Residuary Rules. 
Rule 2(b) makes an exception only if the Central Government makes an order in 
consultation with the State Gowrnment modifying the rules. There is no evi-
dence to show that the Central Government consulted the State Gove

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.