Supreme Court while reiterating criteria for Grant of Deputation Allowance under Disaster Management Rules observed that Jurisdiction of High Courts is limited to the Territorial Jurisdiction of State

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

Supreme Court while reiterating the criteria for the grant of deputation allowance under the Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 (“Rules”) observed and reiterated that the jurisdiction of the respective High Courts is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State (s) of which it is the High Court.

Facts of the Case

The Respondent was sent to the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), which was initially constituted by drawing Battalions from the Central Police Forces, Border Security Force (BSF), Central Railway Police Force (CRPF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). Before the enforcement of the Rules, each of the personnel belonging to Central Para Military Forces remained under control and command of the respective forces. Post the enforcement of Rules on 11.09.2009 the control of the Battalions was vested with NDRF.

The Appeal arises from the decision of a Single Judge of the Madras High Court, wherein the Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent asking for deputation allowance. The Respondent filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court praying to direct the Appellant to pass an order on his representation requesting a grant of 10% Deputation Allowance and 25% special allowance with effect from 18.04.2008. The Ministry of Home Affairs agreed to grant a deputation allowance of 5% if they are deputed in the same station and 10% if deputed outside the station. However, the same was payable with effect from 14.01.2013.

Meanwhile, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Brij Bhushan v. Union of India, judgement dated 11.08.2015 interpreted sub-rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the Rules and held not only the Respondent but all the personnel deputed were entitled to deputation allowance from the date they joined NDRF.

Arguments before the Court     

The main submission of the Appellant was that the allowance could be granted only from 14.01.2013 when O.M. granting the same was announced and not from the date of constitution of the force on 19.01.2006. Alternatively, these Battalions were under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Central Para Military Forces and that basic requirement of the change in master did not happen.

The Respondent argued on the basis of the interpretation of Rules 3(1) and 3(2) reasoned by the Delhi High Court in Brij Bhushan case and submitted that all personnel deputed from the Central Para Military Forces would be deemed to be deputed in the NDRF.

Court’s View on Deputation Allowance

In order to determine the allowance, the Court had to determine if the personnel deputed fulfilled the basic requirements of deputation. The Supreme Court had succinctly explained the concept of deputation in the case of Umapati Choudhary v. the State of Bihar (1999) 4 SCC 659, and described deputation as an assignment of an employee (deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation to another department or cadre or organisation, in public interest. Moreover, the deputation has to be consensual of both the employers (lender and borrower) along with the consent of the employee.

However, the Court in Prasar Bharti v, Amarjeet Singh (2007) 9 SCC 539, made another important observation and held that on transfer of the services in the case of deputation, the control with regards to the employee would also determine whether such employee was on deputation or not.

Court’s Decision

In the instant case, it was noted that till the enforcement of the Rules, 11.09.2009, the Respondent was under the control of his parent organisation and was paid by the said organisation. Though he was a member of the Battalion serving NDRF, it cannot be said that he was deputed to NDRF. Therefore, till 10.09.2009, he could not have been said to have been deputed to NDRF since all the administrative and disciplinary control over such employees remained with the parent organisation, that is, CISF. Hence, the Respondent was entitled to deputation allowance only after the control over the Battalion was handed over to NDRF on 11.09.2009 till he was relieved from service on 07.10.2011.

Moreover, the Court observed that the Madras High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Appellant to grant similar relief to all personnel deputed to NDRF. The Supreme Court observed as follows:

“It is true that sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court.”

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the Appellant to pay the deputation allowance from 11.09.2009 till 07.10.2011.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -