Union Of India And Ors vs Sandeep Kumar

$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC011041422024
+ W.P.(C) 1213/2025 & CM APPL. 5932/2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with
Mr. Akash Mishra and Mr. Arnav Mittal,
Advs.
versus
SANDEEP KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 03.09.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondent was transferred on deputation, by order dated
15/16 December 2017, from the post of Accountant, RMS, SH
Division, Saharanpur to the post of Office Assistant, Postal Training
Center, Saharanpur.
2. The issue in controversy is only the rate of deputation
allowance to which the respondent would be entitled.
3. The respondent approached the Central Administrative
1
Tribunal in that regard. The Tribunal by judgment dated 20 May
1
“the Tribunal”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1213/2025 Page 1 of 4
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
10:06:52

2024 in OA 2969/2021 has granted deputation allowance to the
respondent @ 10% on the basis of an “office order dated 19 February
2021”. Aggrieved thereby, the Department of Posts has approached
this Court by means of the present writ petition.
4. We have heard Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC for the
petitioner, and Ms. Muskan Jain, for the respondent.
5. Ms. Raman submits that the Tribunal has erred in relying on
what it called an office order of 19 February 2021 whereas the
communication of 19 February 2021 was merely an internal office
noting which was put up for approval but which was never approved
and never implemented.
6. There may be some substance in this contention. However, Ms.
Muskan Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our
2
attention to Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2017 issued by
3
the Department of Personnel and Training , which deals with grant of
deputation allowance, following the recommendations of the Seventh
Central Pay Commission. Notes 5 and 6 towards the end of the said
OM read thus:
“ Note 5 The term ‘same station’ for the purpose will be determined
with reference to the station where the person was on duty before
proceeding on deputation.
Note 6 Where there is no change in the headquarters with
reference to the last post held, the transfer should be treated as
within the same station and when there is change in headquarters
it would be treated as not in the same station . So far as places
falling within the same urban agglomeration of the old
2
“OM” hereinafter
3
“ DOPT” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1213/2025 Page 2 of 4
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
10:06:52

headquarters are concerned, they would be treated as transfer
within the same station.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Ms. Jain submits that, as there was a change in the Headquarter
of the respondent on deputation, the deputation had to be treated as
from one station to another. The rate of deputation allowance in such
cases would be 10% and not 5%.
8. Ms. Nidhi Raman does not dispute the fact that in case of inter-
station deputation, the rate of deputation allowance would be 10%.
She also acknowledges the fact that there was a change in
Headquarters. However, she submits that this case cannot be treated as
a case of inter-station deputation. She places reliance on the second
part of Note 6 which states that places falling within the same urban
agglomeration of the old headquarters would be treated as within the
same station.
9. Ms. Raman submits that, in applying the second part of Note 6
to the respondent, the petitioner has relied on the HRA Rules
applicable to the Government Servants, specifically Rule 3(b)(iii),
which reads thus:
“3(b)(iii) Staff working in aerodromes, meteorological
observatories, wireless stations and other Central Government
establishments within a distance of 8 km from the periphery of the
municipal limits of a qualified city will be allowed House Rent
Allowance at the rates admissible in that city even though they may
not be residing within those municipal limits, provided that-”
10. We are unable to agree with the reasoning proposed by Ms.
Raman. Rule 3(b)(iii) does not define ‘urban agglomeration’. We have
not been shown any definition of “urban agglomeration” which would
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1213/2025 Page 3 of 4
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
10:06:52

throw any light on how to interpret the second part of Note 6 in the
DOPT OM dated 24 November 2017.
11. No justification for applying the rules applicable for grant of
HRA, to the applicable rate of deputation allowance, is forthcoming.
12. In that view of the matter, the respondent would be entitled to
the benefit of first part of Note 6, which treats a deputation from a
posting under one headquarters to a posting under another
headquarters to be an inter-station deputation.
13. Inasmuch as the headquarter of the respondent changed on
deputation, the petitioner would be entitled to be treated as having
been sent on deputation from one station to the other and would,
therefore, be entitled to deputation allowance @10% as held by the
Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, for reasons which we have set out hereinabove,
but not approving the reasons given by the Tribunal, we agree with the
ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal that the respondent would be
entitled to deputation allowance @ 10%.
15. We therefore dismiss this writ petition, with no orders as to
costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 3, 2026/
cd
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1213/2025 Page 4 of 4
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:08.09.2026
10:06:52