P G WADHWA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated March 30, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisssing the writ petition filed by the appellant in limine.

(2.) 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 Police and was Commandant General, Home Guards and Director, Civil Defence. On April 15, 1969 the appellant was sent on deputation 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 responsibility 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 Vigilance Officer. By an order dated August 14, 1970 the appellant's terms of deputation to the Board were finalized by the Haryana 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 Petition). It would be seen that the order of the Governor, while protecting the pay and emoluments that the appellant was getting did not mention anything about any deputation allowance being given to him. The appellant made a representation to the Central Government for payment of deputation allowance in accordance with Rule 2 (b). All India Services (Conditions of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Residuary Rules) and submitted that he should be given the same deputation allowance as was admissible to the officers of the Haryana State Civil Service holding posts of Class I when they were sent on deputation to some other department or local body. The representation filed by the appellant to the 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.

(3.) After hearing the appellant in person and counsel for the 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, submitted that being an officer of the Indian Police Service, he was governer under All India Police Services Act, 1951 and Rules made therein and in so far 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:-