Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over deputation allowance for personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) who were sent to the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) constituted under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The respondent, R. Thiyagarajan, was recruited as a constable in CISF in 1999 and was sent to NDRF on 18.04.2008. He was repatriated to CISF on 07.10.2011. He sought deputation allowance and special allowance from the date of his joining NDRF. The Ministry of Home Affairs, on 14.01.2013, approved deputation allowance at 5% or 10% depending on station, payable from that date. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court, which relying on a Delhi High Court judgment in Brij Bhushan v. Union of India, granted deputation allowance and special allowance. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court partly allowed the appeal, granting only deputation allowance but directing payment to all NDRF personnel from 19.01.2006 to 13.01.2013. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the concept of deputation, noting that it requires assignment of an employee from one department to another with consent and change of effective control. The Court found that entire battalions were transferred to NDRF, not individual employees, and the personnel remained under the control of their parent forces until the Rules were enforced on 11.09.2009. Even thereafter, the transfer of battalions did not constitute deputation as there was no change of master or consent. The Court held that the deputation allowance could only be paid from the date of the government's decision on 14.01.2013, not retrospectively. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's direction to pay allowance from 19.01.2006, and directed that the allowance be paid only from 14.01.2013 as per the government order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Deputation Allowance - Deemed Deputation - Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 44, Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008, Rule 3 - The issue was whether personnel of Central Para Military Forces sent to NDRF were on deputation and entitled to deputation allowance from the date of joining. The Supreme Court held that the personnel were not on deputation as entire battalions were transferred, not individual employees, and there was no change of master or consent. The Court set aside the High Court's direction to pay deputation allowance from 19.01.2006 and held that the allowance is payable only from 14.01.2013 as per government order. (Paras 14-18) B) Service Law - Deputation - Definition - Concept of Deputation - The Court explained that deputation involves assignment of an employee from one department to another with consent of the employee and change of effective control. In this case, the personnel remained under the control of their parent forces until the Rules were enforced on 11.09.2009, and even thereafter, the transfer of entire battalions did not constitute deputation. (Paras 14-16) C) Service Law - Deputation Allowance - Effective Date - The Court held that the deputation allowance could only be granted from the date of the government's decision on 14.01.2013, not retrospectively from the constitution of NDRF. The High Court's direction to pay allowance from 19.01.2006 was set aside. (Paras 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether personnel of Central Para Military Forces sent to NDRF are entitled to deputation allowance from the date of their joining NDRF or only from the date of government order granting such allowance.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's direction to pay deputation allowance from 19.01.2006, and held that the deputation allowance is payable only from 14.01.2013 as per the government order. The Court also set aside the direction to pay allowance to all personnel from 19.01.2006.
Law Points
- Deputation allowance
- Deemed deputation
- Disaster Management Act
- 2005
- National Disaster Response Force
- Central Para Military Forces
- Effective control
- Consent of employee
