SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a mandate to the respondent to grant him the deputation allowance in the Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the reading of the aforesaid statutory provision indicates that transfer of a government employee to MITC is a transfer on foreign service and, therefore, he is entitled to draw the usual deputation allowance as per Government decision. The petitioner had joined the service of the Corporation on deputation on April 3, 1984 yet respondent Nos. 1 and 2 neither sent the Last Pay Certificate to respondent No. 3 nor communicated the usual terms and conditions of the deputation, Resplendent No. 3 paid salary to him at the initial start of the pay scale viz Rs. 940/- per month without deputation allowance although his pay in the department was Rs. 1150/- per month. However, later on respondent No. 2 supplied a copy of Last Pay Certificate to respondent No. 3 vide letter dated June 28, 1984 and respondent No. 3, started paying salary to the petitioner at the rate Rs. 1150/- per mensem. But the difference of emoluments for the months of April and May 1984 remained unpaid. It is further submitted that the petitioner was attached with the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department, Chandigarh for administrative purposes during the period of deputation. The Executive Engineer sanctioned one special increment to the petitioner under the Family Welfare Scheme in accordance with the Haryana Government Finance Department Letter No. 6/1(8)79-IFR(1) dated 28.8.1981 and number 6(1)(8)/79-IFR(1) dated 24.11.1981 vide his office order dated January 4.1.1985. Respondent No. 3 neither paid the difference of salary for the months of April and May, 1984 nor the special increment aforesaid despite reminders. The petitioner was threatened by the Financial Adviser of respondent No. 3 that if he did not arrange for his Last Pay Certificate his salary would be stopped from May, 1985 onwards. On receipt of the letter from the Financial Adviser, the petitioner made a detailed representation that obtaining of the Last Pay Certificate was an official function and the Corporation should obtain it from respondent No. 1. Despite this representation, the Financial Adviser did not release him the salary for the month of May, 1985. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Financial Secretary with a copy of the same to the Executive Engineer Designs, his immediate incharge on whose intervention, the said officer released the salary. It was on persistent pursuance that respondent No. 3 paid the difference of salaries for April and May, 1984 and the arrears of special increment commencing from September 1, 1984 onwards in the month of January, 1986. Respondent No. 3, illegally withheld payments and the petitioner claimed interest on the delayed payments. The petitioner was not paid deputation allowance as enjoined by the rules. Respondent No. 1 communicated the terms and conditions of deputation of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 vide letter dated May 23, 1986 but declined to give deputation allowance. The petitioner has impugned the order of respondent No. 1 laying down the terms and conditions of deputation of the petitioner to the extent to which deputation allowance has been declined to him.

(3.) In a nutshell, the petitioner has sought two reliefs in this petition, namely, (i) to grant him interest on the delayed payment of his salary by respondent No. 3 for the month of May, 1985 for want of Last Pay Certificate from respondent No. 1, (ii) to grant him deputation allowance denied vide letter dated May 23, 1986 of respondent No. 1 under which the terms of deputation were laid down.