UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusR. THIYAGARAJAN

146                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 146              [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A                         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                       v.
                             R. THIYAGARAJAN
                        (Civil Appeal No. 2229 of 2020)
B                               APRIL 03, 2020
            [DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
             Service Law – Deputation – Claim for deputation allowance
      – The respondent was employed with Central Industrial Security
      Force (CISF) in the year 1999 – The appellant-Union of India
C     constituted a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) under the
      Disaster Management Act, 2005 – The Disaster Management
      (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 were enforced with
      effect from 11.09.2009 – After, the enforcement of Rules, the various
      Central Para Military Forces including CISF were sent to the NDRF
D     and re-named as NDRF Battalions and their control vested with the
      NDRF from 11.09.2009 and the Battalions drew their pay and
      allowances from 11.09.2009 from the NDRF – The tenure of the
      respondent sent to the NDRF on 18.4.2008 came to an end on
      07.10.2011, when he was relieved from his duties in NDRF and
      repatriated to the CISF – Respondent sought grant of deputation
E     allowance and filed writ petition before the High Court – The Single
      Judge of the High Court not only granted deputation allowance
      but also granted special allowance – The Division Bench of the
      High Court held that respondent was only entitled to deputation
      allowance and not any special allowance and went on to hold that
      not only respondent but all other personnel of the NDRF drawn
F
      from other forces from 19.01.2006 upto 13.01.2013 were entitled
      for deputation allowance – On appeal, held: In the instant case,
      the respondent continued to be under the control of his parent
      organization i.e. CISF till 11.09.2009 and was also getting his pay
      and allowance from the said authority – Therefore, though he may
G     have been serving the NDRF, it cannot be said that he was on
      deputation to the NDRF – The term deputation is loosely used but
      for payment of deputation allowance it must be shown that the
      services of the employee had been transferred to another department/
      cadre/organization and the control over the employee now vests
      with the transferee department/cadre/organization – However,
H
                                      146
        UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. R. THIYAGARAJAN                             147


on 11.09.2009, the date when the Ministry of Home Affairs                    A
conferred the command and control of the Battalions drawn from
various Central Para Military Forces with the Director General,
NDRF and from the said date these personnel drew their pay from
the NDRF they would be deemed to be on deputation with the NDRF
– Therefore, respondent directed to be paid deputation allowance
with effect from 11.09.2009 till 07.10.2011 when he was relieved             B
from the Service – Besides, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
in the present matter – The Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction
over the entire Country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court
is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State of which it is the
High Court – The High Court may be justified in passing an order             C
when it only affects the employees of its State, but it could not have
passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India
repercussions were involved.
         Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
       Held: 1. As far as the present case is concerned, till
                                                                             D
11.09.2009 the respondent continued to be under the control of
his parent organisation i.e. CISF and was also getting his pay and
allowances from the said authority. Therefore, though he as a
member of his Battalion may have been serving the NDRF, it
cannot be said that he was on deputation to the NDRF. His
organisation had agreed to deploy some of its Battalions with the            E
NDRF. However, the administrative and disciplinary control over
such employees remained with the CISF. The emoluments were
also paid by the CISF and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
NDRF was the employer or master of the respondent. In such
circumstances, up to 10.09.2009 the respondent could not be
said to be on deputation even though as per the Rules he may                 F
have been described as a deputanionist. This term has been very
loosely used but for payment of deputation allowance it must be
shown that the services of the employee had been transferred to
another department/cadre/organisation and the control over the
employee now vests with the transferee department/cadre/                     G
organisation. However, on 11.09.2009, the date when the Ministry
of Home Affairs conferred the command and control of the
Battalions drawn from the various Central Para Military Forces
with the Director General, NDRF and from which date these
personnel drew their pay from the NDRF they would be deemed
to be on deputation with the NDRF. [Para 16][154-D-H]                        H
148            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A            2. This Court also is of the view that the High Court
      exceeded its jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court
      exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High
      Court. It has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters
      like the present may be pending in various parts of the country.
      In the present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High
B
      Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken
      different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed
      such order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High
      Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has
      ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted
C     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.
      The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it
D
      only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction
      but, in opinion of this Court, it could not have passed such an
      order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions
      would be involved. [Para 18][155-C-F]
            Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar (1999) 4 SCC
E           659 : [1999] 3 SCR 752; Prasar Bharti v. Amarjeet
            Singh (2007) 9 SCC 539 : [2007] 2 SCR 160 –
            relied on.
            Brij Bhushan v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C)
            No.2532 of 2012) – referred to.
F
                             Case Law Reference
      [1999] 3 SCR 752                relied on                Para 14
      [2007] 2 SCR 160                relied on                Para 14
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2229
G
      of 2020.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2017 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 1645/2016.
            Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Sahil Monga and B. V. Balaram Das,
H     Advs. for the Appellants.
        UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. R. THIYAGARAJAN                              149


     Dhirendra Kr. Mishra, P. B. Reddy, Patnam Shyla, Mrs. Sarla              A
Chandra, Ms. Santwana and B. Y. Kulkarni, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
      1. Leave granted.                                                       B
      2. The respondent is employed with the Central Industrial Security
Force (CISF). He was recruited as a constable in the year 1999.
       3. The appellant enacted the Disaster Management Act, 2005
(for short ‘the Act’) and the same was notified on 26.12.2005. Section
44 of the Act provides that a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF)         C
shall be constituted for the purpose of specialised response to threatening
disaster situations or disasters. The Ministry of Home Affairs approved
the constitution of the NDRF on 19.01.2006. The Disaster Management
(National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 (for short ‘the Rules’)
were made by the Central Government under Section 75 of the Act and           D
notified on 13.02.2008. The Rules were, in fact, enforced with effect
from 11.09.2009.
      4. The NDRF 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
                                                                              E
Industrial Security Force (CISF). The entire Battalions were sent to the
Director General, NDRF. Prior to the enforcement of the Rules i.e. on
11.09.2009, the personnel belonging to the various Central Para Military
Forces continued to remain under the control and command of their
respective police forces. They also continued to receive their pay and
allowances from their parent organisation. After the Rules were enforced      F
on 11.09.2009, the Battalions of the Central Para Military Forces which
were sent to the NDRF were re-named as NDRF Battalions and their
control has from that date vested with the NDRF. They also drew their
pay and allowances from 11.09.2009 from the NDRF.
      5. On 13.01.2010, an office memorandum was issued by the                G
Director General, NDRF which provided that the Battalions of the NDRF
had been re-named and re-numbered in the NDRF to give the force a
separate identity. The tenure of the respondent who had been sent to the
NDRF on 18.04.2008 came to an end on 07.10.2011 when he was relieved
of his duties in NDRF and repatriated to the CISF. He submitted a
                                                                              H
150             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     representation to the Director General, NDRF requesting that he be
      granted 10% deputation allowance and 25% special allowance with effect
      from 18.04.2008. Vide communication dated 23.07.2011 the respondent
      was informed that his case for grant of deputation allowance had been
      taken up with the Ministry of Home Affairs. On 31.07.2011, the respondent
      filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras in which the prayer was
B
      that the respondent in the writ petition i.e. Union of India, Director
      General, NDRF and Director General, CISF be directed to pass orders
      on his representation dated 20.07.2011.
             6. The appellant and other respondents in the writ petition contested
      the writ petition and claimed that the writ petitioner is not entitled to
C     grant of any deputation allowance. In the meantime, on 14.01.2013 the
      Ministry of Home Affairs sent a letter that the competent authority had
      agreed that deputation allowance be paid to the personnel of the Central
      Para Military Forces deputed with the NDRF @ 5% if they are deputed
      in the same station and @ 10% if deputed outside the station subject to
D     certain conditions. On the basis of this letter, the Director General, NDRF
      issued an order on 18.02.2013 on the above lines. However, the deputation
      allowance was made payable with effect from 14.01.2013. This was
      also clarified by the Government of India in its letter dated 25.03.2014.
            7. In the meantime, the Delhi High Court vide judgment dated
E     11.08.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No.2532 of 2012, Brij Bhushan v. Union
      of India, which was a case of another employee of CISF deputed with
      the NDRF with effect from 24.07.2008, held that the petitioner therein
      would be entitled to deputation allowance for the period he remained in
      service with the NDRF. The judgment of the Delhi High Court was
      based on interpretation of the sub-rule 3(1) and 3(2) of the Rules which
F     read as follows:
            “3. Constitution of Force:
            (1) The personnel deputed from the Central Para Military Forces
            by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs vide
G           Order number 1/15/20002-DM/NDM-III(A), dated the 19 th
            January, 2006 shall be deemed to have been deputed in the National
            Disaster Response Force under these Rules.”
            “(2) The Central Government may, in consultation with the National
            Authority, depute, as and when required, such number of personnel
            from the Central Para Military Forces to the National Disaster
H
        UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. R. THIYAGARAJAN                             151
                   [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

      Response Force for the purposes of disaster management, having         A
      skills, capabilities and qualifications and experience of handling
      disaster and their management and such other technical
      qualifications as prescribed by the Central Government in this
      behalf.
      Provided that in the case of non-availability of personnel with the    B
      required technical qualification and experience, the Central
      Government may appoint such personnel through deputation from
      other organizations.”
       8. The Delhi High Court held that the writ petitioner was deemed
to be on deputation in terms of sub-rule 3(1) and 3(2) of the Rules and      C
OM No. 6/8/2009-Esti.(Pay II) dated 17.06.2010, which reads as follows:
      “(e) Appointments of the nature of deemed deputation or transfers
      to ex-cadre posts made in exigencies of service with the specific
      condition that no deputation (duty) allowance will be admissible –
      e.g. (i) interim arrangements in the event of conversion of a          D
      Government office/organisation or a portion thereof into a PSU/
      autonomous body or vice-versa, and (ii) appointments to the same
      post in another cadre.”
       Relying on the aforesaid O.M., the Delhi High Court held that all
persons who joined the NDRF would be treated to be on deputation             E
from the date they joined the NDRF. Special Leave Petition against the
said judgment was dismissed in limine without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case.
      9. Coming to the instant case, the respondent filed writ petition in
the Madras High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High           F
Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein relying
upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Brij Bhushan
(supra) referred to above. The learned Single Judge not only granted
deputation allowance but also granted special allowance to the
respondent.
                                                                             G
       10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was filed
before the Division Bench of the High Court by the Union of India. The
Division Bench partly allowed the appeal of the Union of India and held
that the respondent was only entitled to deputation allowance and not to
any special allowance. However, the Division Bench further went on to
hold that not only the respondent but all other personnel of the NDRF        H
152             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     drawn from other forces from 19.01.2006 up to 13.01.2013 would be
      entitled to be paid deputation allowance and the Central Government
      was directed to ensure that this amount was paid within a maximum
      period of six months. This judgment is under challenge before us.
            11. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of admission the
B     judgment and order dated 22.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Madras
      was stayed.
             12. We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor
      General for the State, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
      for the respondent and Ms. Santwana, learned counsel for the intervenors.
C     At this stage, we may point out that the intervenors are members of the
      NDRF and they filed petitions before the Delhi High Court claiming
      deputation allowance like the respondent. In their cases an order has
      been passed by the Delhi High Court that the judgment of this Court in
      the present case be awaited since that will have vital bearing on the
      case of the intervenors. Therefore, we have heard learned counsel for
D     the intervenors in detail.
             13. The main argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that
      the O.M. granting deputation allowance makes it clear that the said
      allowance is to be paid from 14.01.2013 in which the Court could not
      have directed payment of the said allowance from the date of the
E     constitution of the force on 19.01.2006. In the alternative, it is submitted
      that the personnel of the various Central Para Military Forces who were
      sent to the NDRF could not be said to be on deputation at least till
      13.01.2010 when the NDRF constituted its own Battalions. It is urged
      by Ms. Madhavi Divan that it was not one personnel who was deputed
F     from the Central Para Military Forces to the NDRF but entire Battalions.
      These Battalions remained under the administrative and disciplinary
      control of the Central Para Military Forces to which they belonged and
      the basic requirement of deputation that the master should change did
      not happen. On the other hand, the respondent placed reliance on the
      reasoning given by the Delhi High Court in Brij Bhushan case (supra)
G     and the various communications and it is submitted that right from the
      constitution of the NDRF in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules all personnel
      deputed from the Central Para Military Forces would be deemed to be
      deputed in the NDRF. Rule 3(2) also provided for deputation of such
      employees to the NDRF.
H
           UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. R. THIYAGARAJAN                             153
                      [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

      14. What is deputation has been very succinctly explained in the          A
judgment of this Court in the case of Umapati Choudhary v. State of
Bihar1 wherein this Court held as follows:
         “8. Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an
         employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one
         department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred         B
         to as the parent department or lending authority) to another
         department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as
         the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation
         arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service.
         The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary
         decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and      C
         a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing
         employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on
         deputation or not. In the case at hand all the three conditions
         were fulfilled….”
         In Prasar Bharti v. Amarjeet Singh2 this Court held thus:              D

         “13. There exists a distinction between “transfer” and
         “deputation”. “Deputation” connotes service outside the cadre or
         outside the parent department in which an employee is serving.
         “Transfer”, however, is limited to equivalent post in the same cadre
         and in the same department. Whereas deputation would be a              E
         temporary phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must exhibit the
         opposite indications.
                       xxx                   xxx                       xxx
         17. It has not been disputed that the functions of the Central         F
         Government have been taken over by the Corporation in terms of
         Section 12 of the Act, when the Corporation has started functioning
         on and from the appointed day. It requires manpower for managing
         its affairs. It has been doing so with the existing staff. They are
         being paid their salaries or other remunerations by the Corporation.
         They are subjected to effective control by its officers. The           G
         respondents, for all intent and purposes, are therefore, under the
         control of the Corporation.
                       xxx                   xxx                       xxx
1
    (1999) 4 SCC 659
2
    (2007) 9 SCC 539                                                            H
154             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A           20. The concept of control implies that the controlling officer must
            be in a position to dominate the affairs of its subordinate. It unless
            otherwise defined would be synonymous with superintendence,
            management or authority to direct, restrict or regulate. It is
            exercised by a superior authority in exercise of its supervisory
            power. It may amount to an effective control, which may either
B
            be de facto or remote….”
             15. A reading of the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that
      deputation envisages the assignment of an employee of one department/
      cadre/organisation to another department/cadre/organisation in the public
      interest. It is also clear that normally deputation also involves the consent
C     of the employee. In Prasar Bharti case (supra) this Court also held
      that on transfer of the services in the case of deputation, the control with
      regard to the employee would also determine whether such employee
      was on deputation or not.
             16. As far as the present case is concerned, as we have noticed
D     above, till 11.09.2009 the respondent continued to be under the control
      of his parent organisation i.e. CISF and was also getting his pay and
      allowances from the said authority. Therefore, though he as a member
      of his Battalion may have been serving the NDRF, it cannot be said that
      he was on deputation to the NDRF. His organisation had agreed to deploy
E     some of its Battalions with the NDRF. However, the administrative and
      disciplinary control over such employees remained with the CISF. The
      emoluments were also paid by the CISF and, therefore, it cannot be said
      that the NDRF was the employer or master of the respondent. In such
      circumstances, up to 10.09.2009 the respondent could not be said to be
      on deputation even though as per the Rules he may have been described
F     as a deputanionist. This term has been very loosely used but for payment
      of deputation allowance it must be shown that the services of the employee
      had been transferred to another department/cadre/organisation and the
      control over the employee now vests with the transferee department/
      cadre/organisation. However, on 11.09.2009, the date when the Ministry
G     of Home Affairs conferred the command and control of the Battalions
      drawn from the various Central Para Military Forces with the Director
      General, NDRF and from which date these personnel drew their pay
      from the NDRF they would be deemed to be on deputation with the
      NDRF.

H
        UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. R. THIYAGARAJAN                                   155
                   [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

       17. Ms. Madhavi Divan has also urged that the High Court without            A
any jurisdiction or prayer before it wrongly directed that such relief be
given to all employees and that too from 2006. We are in agreement
with the submission. Before the learned Single Judge, it was only the
respondent herein who was the petitioner and his prayer was only for
his representation being considered. Despite that, the learned Single Judge
                                                                                   B
went beyond the relief claimed and granted him benefit of certain
allowances. An appeal was filed only by the Union of India. No other
person was there before the Division Bench. In such a case, we do not
understand how the Union of India could have been put in a worse
position than it would have been if it had not filed an appeal.
       18. We also are of the view that the High Court exceeded its                C
jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court exercise its jurisdiction
only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It has no jurisdiction for
the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various
parts of the country. In the present case, matter had been decided by the
Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken               D
different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such
order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the
country. 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         E
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. The
High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects
the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, in our opinion,
it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where              F
pan India repercussions would be involved.
        19. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the appeal
and direct that the respondent shall be paid deputation allowance with
effect from 11.09.2009 till 07.10.2011 when he was relieved from service.
As far as the intervenors are concerned, the Delhi High Court can now              G
dispose of their writ petition in view of the law which we have laid down
above. Pending application(s) if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.


Ankit Gyan                                                Appeal partly allowed.
                                                                                   H