Fazal Ali, J. - (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:- "2. Power of Central Government to provide for residuary matters. - The Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned, make regulations to regulate any matters relating to conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service, for which there is no provision in the rules made or deemed to have been made under the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951); and until such regulations are made, such matters shall be regulated: (a) in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the union, by the rules, regulations and orders applicable to officers of the Central Services, Class I. (b) In the ease of persons serving in connection with the affairs of a State by the rules, regulations and orders applicable to officers of the State Civil Services, Class I, subject to such exceptions and modifications as the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Government concerned, by order in writing, make." (Emphasis supplied) It would be seen that Rule 2 (b) expressly applies to the appellant or for that matter to the officers of the All India Services. The substratum of the rule is that whenever any officer is sent on deputation he would be entitled to a deputation allowance equivalent to that which is given to officers of the State Civil Service, Class I. In the instant case, it appears that by virtue of the order issued by the Punjab Government on January 28/31. 1963 which also applies to Haryana by the application of Punjab Reorganisation Act, it is clear that officers of the State concerned holding Class I posts would be entitled to deputation allowance on certain rates mentioned in para (1) (c) (ii) of the Order which runs thus: "The deputation allowance shall be at a uniform rate of 20 per cent of the empolyees' basic pay and shall be subject to a maximum of Rs. 300 per mensem, provided that the basic pay plus the deputation allowance shall, at no time. exceed Rs. 3,000 per mensem. This shall equally apply in cases of 'Foreign Service where at present deputation, allowance of 25 per cent of the basic pay is admissible under Serial No. 40 of Rule 15.1 of Punjab C. S. R. Vol. 1, Part I. 'Basic Pay' for the above purpose shall mean the pay drawn in the scale of pay of the officiating appointment in an employee's parent cadre, provided that the officiating appointment so held was not in a tenure post and it is certified by the appointing authority that but for the deputation the employee would have continued to hold the officiating appointment indefinitely," In other words, the maximum amount of deputation allowance under the order would not exceed a sum of Rs. 300 per mensem. Reading R. 2 (b) in conjunction with para (1) (c) (ii) of the Order of the Punjab Government, it is manifest that the appellant is doubtless entitled. to deputation allowance at the rates mentioned in the order of the Punjab Government which fully applies to Haryana Government also. The argument advanced by the appellant therefore is unanswerable.;