BRIJ BHUSHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents, i.e the Union of India and the National Disaster Response Force ("the Force") to release deputation allowance payments, claimed for the period 24-07-2008 to 20- 03-2012, when he was on deputation.

(2.) The Petitioner was, at the relevant time, employed in the Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF"). He was sent on deputation to the Force, where he reported on 24-07-2008. He continued with the deputation and after the expiry of his tenure, was repatriated to his parent employer, CISF. Since the respondents did not settle his claim for deputation allowance, he approached this court on an earlier occasion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That petition was disposed off on 21-11-2011 directing the respondents to treat the averments and pleadings as a representation and issue an appropriate order. By a letter dated 15th February, 2012, the Force rejected the petitioner's request for deputation allowance, citing the rescission of an earlier order (dated 3-12-2009). That earlier order of 3-9-2008 stated that deputation allowance would be admissible to such employees, sent on deputation.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Bijender Singh, learned counsel that the impugned rejection letter is untenable because it is premised on the ground that those deputed to the Force after its formation and after the Rules were framed under its parent Act- were "deemed deputationists". Counsel relied on Rule 3 of the Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 (hereafter "the Rules") framed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. He argued that those sent initially on deputation were deemed to be deputationists, under Rule 3 (1). Emphasizing that till date the Rules did not provide for a permanent cadre, but rather that the Force is a permanent organization comprising of floating personnel, gathered from various eligible candidates already employed, learned counsel submitted that deputation was the only source of recruitment in the Force. Thus, employees like the Petitioners who joined after the formulation of the Rules were covered by Rule 3 (2), it was contended that the entitlement to deputation allowance clearly existed. It was also submitted that the earlier interpretation and understanding of the Force and the Central Government as to entitlement of such personnel on deputation to allowance was correct; the withdrawal or rescission letter dated 15-01-2010 was erroneous and unjustified.