Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI GURU CHARAN DASS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the order
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack in
T. A. No. 267\86 on May 26, 1987.
The admitted facts are that the respondent was working
in Hirakund Project Prior to 30th march 1960. Consequent
upon the closer of the project, offer was given to several
persons including the respondent for seeking appointment
either in the state service or in the Government of India
service or to get retrenched. The alternative appointment
in the Government project , namely, Danakarnya Project was
given to the respondent by letter dated March 9, 1960 by the
chief Administrator of that Project. The letter of
appointment read as under:
"The post in question carries the
pay scale of 180-10-300...plus
usual dearness allowances
admissible to central Government
employees. In addition the
following allowances have been
sanctioned for the employees of the
Dandakarnya Project and Sri Guru
Charan Das will be entitled to them
in addition to the extent
admissible.
(i) 25% deputation allowance, if
he is already a permanent /quasi
permanent employee, (ii) 20%
Project allowance permanent/quasi
permanent or not (iii) Rent free
tenanted accommodation in the area
or the present.
3. In case the post is acceptable
to Shri Guru Charan Das on these
terms and conditions, he may be
relieved from his duties so as to
as Publicity officer at Koraput
immediately but act later than 4th
April 1960 after availing joining
time, admissible under the rules."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Obviously the respondent accepted the offer of
appointment and in terms thereof by letter dated April 2,
1960, he was appointed temporarily as Publicity Organiser.
Since deputation allowance was not paid to him, he filed a
writ petition in the High Court. consequent upon the
constitution of the Tribunal, the writ petition was has
found as a fact that his continuance in Hirakund as U.D.C.
was on permanent basis and that, therefore, he is entitled
to the deputation allowance.
Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant contends that since the respondent came to be
appointed afresh on temporary basis in terms of the
appointment letter, he is not entitled to the deputation
allowance. We find no force in the contention.
In view of the offer of appointment given to the
respondent and the respondent having accepted the same, he
is entitled to the deputation allowance of 25%. Since his
status as a permanent U.D.C. was not disputed before the
Tribunal and no tangible contra material has been placed
before us justifying acceptance of the said finding
recorded by the Tribunal, the respondent is entitled to
deputation allowance as directed by the Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.