MUKAND LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN affidavit of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana (respondent No.3) alongwith documents filed today in Court is taken on record. Copy supplied to counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) PETITIONERS , who are regular employees of Cooperative Department, Haryana, have approached this Court, challenging the letter dated 6.1.1988 (Annexure P -3) vide which deputation allowance, which was earlier admissible to the officials of Cooperative Department of Haryana when sent on deputation with the Cooperative Institutions, was held to be not admissible. Counsel for the petitioners contends that prior to the issuance of impugned letter dated 6.1.1988, all employees of Cooperative Department were entitled to grant of deputation allowance when they were sent on deputation with the Cooperative Institutions. By this impugned letter, a separate category of employees has been carved out, which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the employees of other Departments of Government of Haryana when sent on deputation with the Cooperative Institutions are entitled to grant of deputation allowance. This action of the respondents is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and the petitioners be held entitled to grant of deputation allowance.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners, who are employees of Cooperative Department, are not entitled to deputation allowance and this decision was taken keeping in view the fact that they are granted various additional facilities by the Cooperative Institutions, when they are sent on deputation. He contends that the employee is not sent on deputation by force but is with the consent of the concerned employee. If the employee is not willing to go on deputation, then he can refuse the same and the other employees, who are interested in going on deputation, can opt for the same. His further contention is that the terms and conditions of the deputation are clearly specified, when an offer for deputation is made and whosoever volunteers and found suitable for taking up such assignment, is sent on deputation. Once an employee accepts the terms and conditions of the deputation, he is bound by the same and cannot turn around and stake a claim for grant of the allowances, which are neither statutory nor based on any instructions. He further contends that the statutory rules, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, although not applicable as it deals with transfer, but even if the said Rule is taken into consideration, it is clearly mentioned therein that the remuneration, which an employee would be entitled to, has to be mentioned therein. It should also be mentioned as to any concession of pecuniary value in addition to his pay proper. A Government employee will also not be permitted to receive any remuneration or enjoy any concession, which is not so specified and if the order is silent as to any particular remuneration or concession, it must be assumed that the intention is that the employee shall not enjoy the same. He states that the terms of transfer also even if taken as a foreign service, the allowance would be one which is specifically provided for in the order and if it is not mentioned therein, the employee shall not be entitled to the same. He, on this basis, contends that the order impugned, being in accordance with the statutory rules, deserves to be sustained. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.