Holding

Rule 2(b) of the Residuary Rules applies to All India Service officers on deputation and obliges the State to pay deputation allowance as per the Punjab Government order, unless a Central Government order after consultation modifies it.

Summary

P.C. Wadhwa, an IPS officer, was deputed to the Haryana State Electricity Board as a Vigilance Officer. The Governor's order protected his pay but did not mention a deputation allowance. Wadhwa claimed entitlement to such allowance under Rule 2(b) of the All India Services (Conditions of Service‑Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, which aligns the allowance with that payable to State Civil Service Class I officers. The State argued that the IPS Cadre and Pay Rules contained no provision for a deputation allowance, implying a bar. The Supreme Court held that Rule 2(b) expressly applies to All India Service officers on deputation and, in the absence of a Central Government order modifying it, the officer is entitled to the allowance prescribed in the Punjab Government order. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal was set aside and a writ of mandamus was issued directing payment of the allowance.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 2(b) of the All India Services (Conditions of Service‑Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 applies to IPS officers on deputation and confers a right to deputation allowance.
Whether the absence of a specific provision in the IPS Cadre and Pay Rules bars the payment of deputation allowance.
Whether the Governor's order can be treated as a Central Government modification that negates the effect of Rule 2(b).
Whether a Central Government order, after consultation with the State, is required to alter the entitlement under Rule 2(b).

Legislation cited

Subjects

deputation allowanceAll India ServicesIPSResiduary Rulesstatutory rightcentral governmentstate governmentrule interpretation

Judgment

84

A P.C. WADHWA
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

March 5, 1981
B
[ 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
c 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,
D 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.
E
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
F 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.
G
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

H 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 A
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
B
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.
c
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]
D
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- E
dence to show that the Central Government consulted the State Government to
take away the effect of Rule 2(b) of the Residuary Rules. Moreover the order of
the Governor cannot be construed as an order passed by the Central Govern-
ment. [90E-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDICTION Civil Appeal No. 1475/1972.
F
\ Appeal by special lea\'.e from the Judgment and Order
dated 30.3.1972 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ
Petition No. I 034 .of 1972.

P, C. Wadhwa in person (Appellant.) G
K.G. Bhagat and R.N. Podar for Rsepondent No. I

K.K, Jain, Bishamber Lal, S.K. Gupta and P. Dayal for Respon-
dent No. 2.

K. S. Gurumoorthy for Union of India. H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!981) 3 S.C.R

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FAZAL Au, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
an order dated March 30, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in limine. ·

B The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and
may be stated thus :

The appellant was an IPS officer allotted to the Haryana State
and before his services were placed at the disposal of the Haryana
State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), he
was holding a substantive rank of Deputy Inspector-General of
c Police and was Commandant General, Home Guards and Director,
Civil Defence. On April 15, 1969 the appellant was sent on deputa-
tion and his services were placed at the disposal of the Board where
he was to work as Deputy Inspector General of Police for Vigilance
Work. On July 10, 1970 the post of Deputy Inspector General of
Police in the Board was declared equivalent in status and responsibi-
D
lity to the IPS Cadre post of Deputy Inspector General of Police in
order to protect the pay and salary and other allowances of
the appellant which he was getting in his post before his deputation
to the Board. In the Board, the appellant was designated as Vigi-
lance Officer. By an order dated August 14, 1970 the appellant's
terms of deputation to the Board were finalized by the Haryana
E
Government and the same were communicated to the appellant on
August 26, 1970. The terms and conditions on which the appellant
was sent on deputation to the Board are contained in the order
passed by the Governor of Haryana (Annexure B to SLP
It would be seen that the order of the Governor, while protecting
the pay and emoluments that the appellant was getting, did not
F mention anything about any deputation allowance being given to
him. The appellant made a representation to the Central Govern-
ment for payment of deputation allowance in accordance with
rule 2 (b) of the All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary
.. Matters) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter refefred to as the Residuary Rules)
and submitted that he should be given the same deputation
G
allowance as was admissible to the officers of the Haryana State
Civil Service holding posts of Class I when they were sent on depu-
tation to some other department or local body. The representa-
tion filed by the appellant to Central Government was rejected. The
· appellant then filed the writ petition before the High Court which
was dismissed in limine, as indicated above. Hence this appeal.
P.C. WADHWA v. HARYANA (Fazctl Ali, J.) 87

After hearing the appellant in person and counsel for the A
parties, we are satisfied that this appeal must succeed on a short
point, and we are really surprised why the High Court dismissed the
writ petition in limine when the matter merited serious scrutiny and ,
deep examination. The appellant, who has argued in person, submit-
ted that being an officer of the Indian Police Service, he was governed
under All India Services Act, 1951 and Rules made therein and in B
so for as deputation allowance was concerned, by the Residuary
Rules. He had thus a statutory right to get deputation allowance,
as provided for in Rule 2(b) of the Residuary Rules. Relevant
portion of Rule 2 may be extracted thus :

"2. Power of the Central Government to provide for residuary c
matters.-The Central Government may, after consultation
with the Governments of the States concerned, make regu-
lations to regulate any matters relating to conditions of
service of persons appointed to an All India Service, for
which there is no provision in the rules made or deemed
to have been made under the All India Services Act, 1951 D
(61 of 1951); and until such regulations are made, such
matters shall be regulated :-

(a) in the case of persons serving in connection with the
affairs of the Union, ·by the rules, regulations and
orders applicable to officers of the Central Services, E
Class I;

(b) in the case of persons serving in connection with the
Affairs of a State by the rules, regulations and orders
applicable to officers of the State Civil Services,
Class I, subject to such exceptions and modifications
F
as the Central Government may, after consultation·
with the State GovernmeJ t concerned, by order in
writing, make;" (Emphasis supplied)

It would be seen that rule 2(b) expressly applies to the appel-
. 'r lant or for that matter to the officers of the All India Services. The G
substatum of the rule is that whenever any officer is sent on deputa·
tion, he would be entitled to a deputation allowance equivalent
to that which is given to officers of the State Civil Service, Class I.
In the instant case, it appears that by virtue of the Order issued by
th~ Punjab Government on January 28/31, 1963 which also applies H
to Haryana by the application of Punjab Reorganization Act, it is
clear that officers of the State concerned holding Class I posts would
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 3 S.C.R.

A be entitled to deputation allowance on certain rates mentioned in
para (i) (c) (ii) of the order which runs thus :

"The deputation allowance shaU be at a uniform rate of
20 per cent of the employee's basic pay and shall be subject
to a maximum of Rs. 300/- per mensem, provided that the
basic pay plus the deputation allowance shall, at no time ex-
B
ceed Rs. 3,000/- per mensem. This shall equally apply in
cases of 'Foreign Service' where at present deputation
allowance of 25 per cent of the basic pay is admissible under
serial No. 40 of rule 15.1 of Punjab C.S.R. Vol. I Part I,
'Basic pay' for the above purpose shall mean the pay drawn in
c the scale of pay of the officiating appointment in an employee's
parent cadre, provided that the officiating appointment so held
.,_p··

was not in a tenure post and it is certified by the appointing
authority that but for the deputation the employee would
have continued to hold the officiating appointment indefine-
tely."
D In other words, the maximum amount of deputation allowance
under the order would not exceed a sum of Rs. 300/- per mensem.
Reading Rule 2(b) in conjunction with para (i) (c) (ii) of the order
of the Punjab Government, it is manifest that the appeUant is
doubtless entitled to deputation allowance at the rates mentioned
in the order of the Punjab Government which fully applies to
E Haryana Government also. The argument advanced by the
appellant therefore is unanswerable.
Mr. Bhagat, appearing for the State ·of Haryana, submitted
that there is no provision either in Rule 6 of the JPS (Cadre) Rules,
F 1954 or in Rule 9 of the IPS (Pay) Rules 1954 regarding payment
of deputation allowance and hence it should be held that any officer
belonging to the JPS cadre was debarred from getting any deputation J
allowance unless there was an express provision in the said rules.
Relevant part of rule 6 of the IPS (Cadre) Rules may be extracted
thus:
G
"Deputation of Cadre Officers. -(1) A cadre officer
may, with the concurrence of the State Government or
the State Governments concerned and the Central
Government be deputed for service under the Central
Government or another State Government or under a company,
H association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or
not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controUed
by the Central Government or by another State Government.
P.C. WADHWA v. HARYANA (Fazal Ali, J.} 89

(2) A cadre officer may also be deputed for service under :- A
(i) a company, association or body of individuals, whe-
ther incorporated or not, which is wholly or substan-
tially owned or controlled by a State Government,
a Municipal Corporation or a Local Body, by the
State Government on whose cadre he is borne, B
and

(ii)

Provided that

Provided further that no cadre officer shall be deputed c
under sub-rule (i) or sub rule (2) to a post carrying a
prescribed pay which is less than or a pay scale, the maxi-
mum of which is less than, the basic pay he would have
drawn in the cadre post but for his deputation."

We are unable to read in any of these rules any prohibition or D
bar to the payment of deputation allowance to an officer of the IPS
Cadre on deputation to any of the authorities mentioned in rule 2(i)
above. In the instant case the appellant was sent on deputation to
the Board which is a body 'Wholly or substantially owned by the
State Government. The mere absence of the provision for payment
of deputation allowance cannot be interpreted to mean an absolute E
bar to the receipt of such deputation allowance by an IPS Cadre
officer, if other Rules permit such a course of action. Similarly,
Rule 9 of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954 contains various clau.ses which
merely protect the Pay and salaries admissible to an IPS officer when
sent on deputation. There is no reference to any allowance or other
emoluments in the Rule, excepting pay which is clearly set out in F
Schedule III to those Rules. We have gone through Sub-Rules (I)
to (6) of Rule 9 and are unable to find any limitation contained in
these rules which could prevent the appellant from getting deputa.
tion allowance. Reliance was, however, placed on the proviso to
sub-rule (6) which may be extracted thus :
G
"Provided that the pay allowed to an officer under this
sub-rule and sub-rule (5) shall not at any time be less than
what he would have drawn had he not been appointed
to a post referred to in sub-rule (4)."
H
The dominant object of the proviso is merely to protect the
the pay and salary which an IPS officer was getting when he was
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 3 S.C.R

A sent on deputation, so that his being sent on deputation may not
cause any prejudice to his career or emoluments. There being no
Rules on the subject, it is manifest that in such cases the Residuary
Rules would apply. We might mention that the Residuary Rules
were made in 1960, about six years after the issuance of JPS (Cadre)
Rules and JPS (Pay) Rules. It seems to us that the Central Govern-
B ment realised that, when other officers of the State Government on
deputation were entitled to deputation allowance, there was no rea-
son why this privilege should be denied to officers of the cadre of
JPS. Perhaps it was with this essential object in view that Rule 2(b)
of the Residuary Rules was enacted so as to enable JPS officers to
get deputation allowance on .the same terms as officers of State Civil
c Service Class J were getting. This provision would naturally hold
the field in the absence of any express Rules made by the Central
Government, which have so far not been made.

Counsel appearing for the Board submitted before us that the
letter of the. Governor dated August 14; 1970 laying down the terms
D of deputation of the appellant does not contain any mention of
deputation allowance to be given to the appellant and should there-
fore be read as a modification made by the Central Government,
as contemplated by clause (b) of rule 2 of the Residuary Rules. We
are, however, unable to agree with this contention. In the first
place, Rule 2 (b) of the Residuary Rules makes an exception only if
E the Central Government makes an order and that too after consul-
tation with the State Government concerned modifying the Rule.
There is no evidence in this case to show that any order was passed
by the Central Government after consulting the State Government
to modify or take away the effect of rule 2(b) of the Residuary
F Rules. The order of the Governor of Haryana cannot by any
stretch of imagination be construed as an order passed by the
Central Government. For these reasons the contentions raised by
the respondents must be overruled. For the reasons given above we
hold that the appellant is legally entitled under the Statutory Rules
as indicated above to get deputation allowance. The Board was
G therefore in law bound to pay the said deputation allowance to the
appellant. The result is that the appeal is allowed and order of the
High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine is quashed. A Writ
of mandamus is issued to the Board to pay the deputation allowance
to the appellant, to be calculated in terms of para (i) (c) (ii) of the
order of the Punjab Government referred to in this judgment. The
H payment would be made for the period the appellant was on depu-
P.C. WADHWA v. HARYANA (Fazal Ali, J.) 91

tation to the Board. The entire amount shall be paid within three A
months.

·r · The appellant would be entitled to his costs, quantified
at Rs. 2,000/· which also should be paid to the appellant within
three months.
B
P.B.R. Appeal allowed.

/

' \