Delhi High Court
Sucheta Negi vs Uoi & Ors. on 14 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 14, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3920/2005
SUCHETA NEGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Mehta,
Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagat Singh and Mr. Aashish
Kumar Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 2nd December, 2004 directs recovery of
`12,183/- from petitioner as she was paid the said amount as deputation
allowance in excess and the said recovery was sought to be made from
October, 2004 till March, 2005. Petitioner has also sought in this petition
payment of Central Dearness Allowance @ 65% and also payment of
Deputation Allowance of `1,000/- per month.
2. It is the case of petitioner that while proceeding on deputation, she
had sought protection of her pay alongwith deputation allowance and
other allowances as payable to the employees of respondent-Corporation.
Though it is case of petitioner that the protection of existing pay and
deputation allowance does not exceed the maximum of the scale of
deputation post, but it is not so averred in the writ petition. As per the
Rules governing deputation (Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit of
respondent No.1), pay protection with allowance cannot exceed the
maximum of the scale of the deputation post. So far as payment of
Central Dearness Allowance @ 65% is concerned, there is no
representation by petitioner to respondent-Corporation. However,
petitioner vide letter of 29th October, 2004 (Annexure-E) had sought
release of two increments, which were due to her in her parent
organization alongwith Central Dearness Allowance, but in the said
Communication, Central Deputation Allowance has not been sought.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent-Corporation, there is
bald denial of the averments made by petitioner in the writ petition. The
Rules governing deputation are enclosed as Annexure R-1 with the
counter affidavit of respondent No.1 and its perusal reveals that in a case
where basic pay of deputationist exceeds the maximum of the scale of
pay of a deputation post, then in such a case, the deputation period is
restricted to maximum of six months and thereafter, the deputationist has
to be reverted to the parent department. There is no worthwhile
explanation in the counter affidavit filed to petitioner's claim for payment
of two increments, which she had earned in her parent department during
the period of deputation, nor is there any justification to deduct excess
payment made under the deputation allowance.
4. Since the pleadings in the writ petition are also deficient, therefore,
it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to
petitioner to file a concise representation to respondent-Corporation
within a period of four weeks from today. Upon receipt of such a
Representation, respondent-Corporation shall pass a speaking order
thereon within a period of twelve weeks and the fate of the
Representation be made known to petitioner a week thereafter, so that
petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2018
s
