Nirmal Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents f to 3 to treat the petitioners on deputation and to allow deputation allowance. The facts as set out in the petition are as under : - Two unusual occurrences took place in Punjab and Haryana at Chowk Mehta and at Chando Kalan respectively in September, 1981. The State Governments appointed Inquiry Commissions. Justice Gurnam Singh, a retired Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court was appointed by the State of Haryana to head the Chando Kalan Inquiry Commission. Similarly, Justice P.S. Pattar, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed by the Government of Punjab as one -man Commission under Sec. 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with regard to the incident occurred at Chowk Mehta, Amritsar. The staff for these two commissions were sent from the Punjab & Haryana High Court on deputation. Justice P.S. Pattar accepted the terms and conditions as one -man Inquiry Commission for himself and the staff as allowed to Justice Gurnam Singh and the staff appointed by the State of Haryana for Chando Kalan Commission. It was on that undertaking conveyed to him by the Legal Remembrancer -cum - Secretary to Government, Punjab that Hon'ble Justice P.S. Pattar gave his final consent. Petitioner having been selected, approved and deputed joined their duties under respondent No. 2 on 4.2.1982 in view of the undertaking given by respondent No. 1. The orders containing terms and conditions of the staff of Chando Kalan Commission and Mehta Chowk Commission were issued on 13.1.1982 and 6.3.1982 respectively. It was specifically provided under Item No. 1 in both the orders that the staff during the period of deputation will be entitled to deputation allowance @ 20% of their basic pay. The relevant portion of the said orders reads as under : - Pay : During the period of deputation, in addition to the scale, they will be entitled to deputation allowance @ 20% of their basic pay." that they would be allowed the same terms and conditions as meant for the staff of Chando Kalan Commission, but respondent No. 1 declined to treat the petitioner as on deputation..
(2.) It was pleaded that petitioners had to undergo financial losses. Petitioner No. 1 applied for Leave Travel Concession to respondent No. 1 and he (petitioner No. 1) was asked to approach the parent department. The parent department also declined the request of the petitioner for the grant of Leave Travel Concession on the ground for the grant of Leave Travel Concession on ground that he was not on the Establishment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at the relevant time and was on deputation. The State of Punjab through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice informed Justice Pattar vide D.O. Letter No. 32/3/81 -4H(II)/6120 dated 8.4.1983 that the staff attached to him cannot be granted the deputation allowance.
(3.) Petitioners have prayed that the order of respondent No. 1 is illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the undertaking given by respondents 1 & 2.;