Change in headquarters constitutes inter-station deputation, attracting deputation allowance at 10%.

The respondent was transferred on deputation by order dated 15/16 December 2017 from the post of Accountant, RMS, Saharanpur Division, to the post of Office Assistant at the Postal Training Centre, Saharanpur.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, in OA No. 2969/2021, by judgment dated 20 May 2024, awarded deputation allowance at 10%, relying on an alleged office order dated 19 February 2021.

The Department of Posts challenged that decision before the High Court, contending that the 19 February 2021 communication was merely an unapproved internal office noting and not an operative office order.

The respondent relied instead on the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2017, particularly Notes 5 and 6, and contended that the change in headquarters made the deputation inter-station, attracting allowance at 10%.

Whether the respondent’s deputation from one post to another, involving a change in headquarters, was an inter-station deputation for purposes of determining deputation allowance under the DoPT OM dated 24 November 2017.

Whether the expression “same urban agglomeration” in Note 6 of the DoPT OM could be interpreted by applying the House Rent Allowance Rules, including Rule 3(b)(iii), so as to restrict the allowance to 5%.

Whether the respondent was entitled to deputation allowance at the rate of 10% notwithstanding the Tribunal’s reliance on the unapproved communication dated 19 February 2021.

The Court applied the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2017 governing deputation allowance following the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission.

Under Note 5, “same station” is determined with reference to the station where the employee was posted before proceeding on deputation.

Note 6 provides that where there is no change in headquarters, the transfer is within the same station; where there is a change in headquarters, it is treated as a transfer between stations, subject to the provision concerning places within the same urban agglomeration of the old headquarters.

Rule 3(b)(iii) of the House Rent Allowance Rules, which concerns HRA eligibility for establishments within a specified distance of municipal limits, does not define “urban agglomeration” and cannot be imported into the determination of deputation allowance.

Although the Court found some substance in the Department’s contention that the 19 February 2021 communication was only an unapproved internal noting, the respondent’s entitlement could independently be determined under the DoPT OM dated 24 November 2017.

The parties accepted that inter-station deputation attracted deputation allowance at 10%, while the respondent’s headquarters had in fact changed.

The Court rejected the Department’s attempt to rely on Rule 3(b)(iii) of the HRA Rules, because that provision did not define “urban agglomeration” and there was no basis for applying HRA principles to deputation allowance.

Consequently, under the first part of Note 6, the change in headquarters constituted deputation from one station to another, warranting allowance at 10%.

While the Court did not approve the Tribunal’s reliance on the alleged office order dated 19 February 2021, it affirmed the Tribunal’s ultimate conclusion on an independent legal basis.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.