UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus R. THIYAGARAJAN

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 03-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
R. THIYAGARAJAN
(Civil Appeal No. 2229 of 2020)
APRIL 03, 2020
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
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,
146
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 146
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
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, 

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