Prithvi Raj, J. - (1.) The petitioner who served with the Central Intelligence Bureau on deputation from the State of Gujarat, claims that he is entitled to pension of the deputation allowance and special pay drawn by him during the period he worked in the said Bureau from 15th June, 1963 to the date of his retirement and alleges that the action of the respondents in refusing to pay pension by computing the special pay and the deputation allowance drawn by him is in breach: of the statutory rules in relation to the conditions of his service and the terms and conditions of deputation agreed to by the respondents. The petitioner has further challenged the action of the respondents in refusing to. pay the difference of pay, special pay, deputation allowance and compensatory allowance from 1st April, 1961 to 14th June, 1963, on the allegation that his confirmation orders as. Deputy Superintendent of Police were issued earlier, viz., 20th July, 1968, than the promotion orders which were issued on 24th September, 1969, promoting the petitioner as. Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 1st April, 1961, by giving the benefit of next below rule. Accordingly, this writ petition has been filed praying that the orders dated 6th May, 1969, Annexure All; orders dated 23rd June, 1969, Annexure A/12; orders dated 31st July, 1970, Annexure A/16; and orders dated 23rd June, 1969. Annexure A/13, passed by respondents 1 to 3 be quashed on the ground that the said orders are in breach of the statutory rules relating to the conditions of petitioner's service and in violation of the terms and conditions of deputation agreed to by the respondents. It has been further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents, jointly or severally to pay pension to the petitioner of i of the deputation allowance and special pay drawn by him during the period he remained on deputation with respondent No. 1 from 15th June, 1963, to the date of his retirement. The petitioner has further prayed that a direction be issued to respondent No. 1 to pay the petitioner difference of pay as fixed by the Accountant General, Rajkot and difference of special pay, deputation allowance and compensatory allowance as admissible to him in terms of notifications dated 18th February, 1961, Annexure A/1 and dated 10th May,. 1961, Annexure A/2.
(2.) The petitioner who was serving as Inspector in the police department of the Bombay State was sent on deputation to serve with the Central Intelligence Bureau where he joined on 18th May, 1951. On the bifurcation of the State of Bombay into two States, i.e., the States of Bombay and Gujarat, the petitioner's services were allocated to the State of Gujarat. He was accordingly considered on deputation to the Central Intelligence Bureau from the State of Gujarat to. which State his lien of service had been transferred on the bifurcation of the State of Bombay. The petitioner was holding the post of an Inspector of Police in his parent State, i.e., the State of Gujarat in 1961. He was. working on an equivalent post in the Central Intelligence Bureau as an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer.
(3.) The petitioner states that on the 18th February, 1961 and 10th May, 1961, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, superseding the previous terms and conditions of service of the officers on deputation to the Central Intelligence Bureau issued notifications Annexures A/1 and A/2 which were made applicable to the officers on deputation at that time to the Central Intelligence Bureau. The petitioner avers that notification, Annexure A/1, related to the police officers up to the rank of Inspector while notification, Annexure A/2, related to the officers above the rank of an Inspector. It is alleged that after the issuing of the said notifications respondent No. 1 obtained the option - of the petitioner in writing and the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of deputation vide Annexure A/4. The State Government of Gujarat is also stated to have accepted the terms and conditions of deputation and allowed the petitioner to continue working on deputation, on these terms and conditions, with the Central Intelligence Bureau. The petitioner further alleges that according to the terms and conditions, Annexures A/1 and A/2, he was not only to get the same pay and dearness allowance to which he was entitled in his parent State but deputation allowance was also to be given besides special pay to be treated as duty allowance under Article 23-C of Civil Service Regulations for purposes of pension under Article 486 of the above said Regulations, was to be paid in view of onerous and difficult nature of duties to be performed in the Central Intelligence Bureau. Accordingly the pay and allowances of the petitioner were fixed in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in Annexures A/1 and A/2 vide order, Annexure A/3.;