THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSHRI GURU CHARAN DASS
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 402
- Decided
- 10 April 1997
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Since the offer of appointment was given and accepted, and the respondent's status as a permanent employee was not disputed, he is entitled to the 25% deputation allowance.
Summary
The respondent, a permanent U.D.C. employee of the Hirakund Project, was offered and accepted a temporary appointment in the Dandakarnya Project after the closure of his original project. The appointment letter stipulated a 25% deputation allowance for permanent or quasi‑permanent employees, along with other allowances. The respondent was not paid the deputation allowance and filed a writ petition, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT held that the respondent remained a permanent employee and was therefore entitled to the deputation allowance. On appeal, the Union of India argued that the temporary nature of the new appointment barred the allowance, but the Court rejected this contention. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding, holding that the offer and acceptance of the appointment conferred entitlement to the 25% deputation allowance, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a person appointed afresh on a temporary basis after project closure is entitled to a deputation allowance when he was previously a permanent employee.
Subjects
Judgment
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
SHRI GURU CHARAN DASS
APRIL 10, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) B
Se1Vice Law :
Deputation Allowance-Employees w01king in Project-On closure of
Project appointed in Government se1vice-Entitlement to deputation al-
lowance-Held: Since offer of appointment given and it was accepted the c
employee is entitled to deputation allowance.
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 676 of
1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.87 of the Central Ad- D
ministrative Tribunal, Cut tack in T .A. No. 267 of 1986.
P.P. Malhotra, Hemant Sharma and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appel-
lants.
P.N. Misra for the Respondent. E
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave arises from the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack in T.A. No. 267/86 on May 26,
1987. F
The admitted facts are that the respondent was working in Hirakund
Project prior to 30th March 1960. Consequent upon the closer of the
Project, offer was given to several persons including the respondent for
seeking appointment either in the State Service or in the Government of G
India service or to get retrenched. The alternative appointment in the
Government project, namely, Dandakarnya Project was given to the
respondent by letter dated March 9, 1960 by the Chief Administrator of
that project. The letter of appointment read as under :
"The post in question carries the pay scale of 180-10- 300.... plus H
827
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.
A usual dearness allowances admissible to Central Government
employees. In addition the following allowances have been sanc-
tioned for the employees of the Dandakarnya Project and Sri Guru
Charan Das will be entitled to them in addition to the extent
admissible.
B (i) 25% deputation allowance, if he is already a permanenUquasi
permanent employee, (ii) 20% project allowance regardless of
whether he is permanent/ quasi permanent or not (iii) Rent free
tenanted accommodation in the area or the present.
3. ln case the post is acceptable to Shri Guru Charan Das on these
c terms and condition~, he may be r dic;ved frum his duties so as to
as Publicity Officer at Koraput immediately but act later than 4th
April 1960 after availing joining time, admissible under the rules."
Obviously the respondent accepted the offer of appointment and in
D terms thereof by letter dated April 2, 1960, he was appointed temporarily
as Publicity Organiser. Since deputation allowance was not paid to him, he
filed a writ petition in the High Court. Consequent upon the constitution
of the Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal for
disposal. The Tribunal has found as a fact that his continuance in Hirakund
as U.D.C. was on perma11ent basis and that, therefore, he is entitled to the
E deputation allowance.
Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appeal
contends that since the respondent came to be appointed afresh on tem-
porary basis in terms of the appointment letter, he is not entitled to the
deputation allowance. We find no force in the contention.
F
In view of the offer of appointment given to the respondent and the
respondent having accepted the same, he is entitled to the deputation
allowance of 25%. Since his status as a permanent U.D.C. was not disputed
before the Tribunal and no tangible contra material has been placed before
G us justifying acceptance of the said finding recorded by the Tribunal, the
respondent is entitled to deputation allowance as directed by the Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.