JUDGEMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. -
(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.
Further contention of counsel for the petitioner is that as per Note 1, Rule 10.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I
(Annexure A) at Page 212, which deals with the amount of remuneration to
be granted to a Government employee transferred to foreign service within
India clearly stipulates that remuneration to that effect should be granted to
the employees who are sent on deputation. He, on this basis, contends that
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated.
(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.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.