The Union of India & Ors Vs. Shri Guru Charan Dass [1997]
INSC 422 (10 April 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
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." 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
