Delhi High Court
Inder Kumar Rana vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 September, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 4th September, 2020.
+ W.P.(C) 1654/2017
INDER KUMAR RAINA .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Santwana Agarwal and Mr. Ravi
Rai, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 1853/2017
VIJENDER SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Santwana Agarwal and Mr. Ravi
Rai, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM APPL. 21561/2020 in W.P.(C) 1654/2017 and CM APPL.
21595/2020 in W.P.(C) 1853/2017 (both of the petitioners, for early
hearing)
1. Further proceedings in both these writ petitions were adjourned sine
die vide order dated 25th March, 2019 awaiting the outcome of a matter
entailing the same issue, pending in the Supreme Court.
2. These applications have been filed stating that the Supreme Court
vide Union of India Vs. R. Thiyagarajan 2020 SCC OnLine SC 349 has
decided the issue.
3. The counsel for the applicants/petitioners and the counsels for the
respondents appearing on advance notice, on enquiry state that in terms of
the judgment aforesaid of the Supreme Court, the petitions have to be
decided and can be decided today itself.
4. The applications are allowed and disposed of. The writ petitions are
ordered to be taken up for hearing today itself.
W.P.(C) 1654/2017 & W.P.(C) 1853/2017.
5. The sole petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1654/2017 and 319 petitioners in
W.P.(C) No. 1853/2017 have filed these petitions (a) impugning the order
dated 12th January, 2017 of the respondent no.3 Director General, National
Disaster Response Force (NDRF); and, (b) seeking mandamus to the
respondents NDRF to pay deputation allowance to the petitioners.
6. The petitions were entertained and pleadings therein ordered to be
completed. However thereafter, as aforesaid, the petitions were adjourned
sine die awaiting decision by the Supreme Court in a matter arising from the
High Court of Madras and entailing the same issue.
7. The Supreme Court now, with respect to the petitioner before the
High Court of Madras, has held that the entitlement to deputation allowance
is w.e.f. 11th September, 2009, till the date the petitioner therein was
relieved from service.
8. The counsel for the petitioners states that these petitions be also
disposed of directing the respondents to pay deputation allowance to each of
the petitioners, w.e.f. 11th September, 2009 and till the date each of the
petitioners was relieved from service.
9. The counsels for the respondents have drawn our attention to para 18
of the judgment of the Supreme Court. It appears that the High Court of
Madras, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner before it, instead of
confining the relief to the writ petitioner before it, issued a direction for
payment of deputation allowance to all those similarly placed as the
petitioner therein. On grievance with respect thereto being made before the
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in para 18 of its judgment held that the
High Court of Madras indeed exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing direction
for the entire country, while its jurisdiction was limited to the territorial
jurisdiction of the State of which it was the High Court and could not have
passed a general direction as was done. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set
aside the said direction of the High Court of Madras and the appeal of the
Union of India before the Supreme Court was allowed to the said extent.
10. It is the contention of the counsels for the respondents that the 319
petitioners who have jointly filed W.P.(C) No.1853/2017, are admittedly
posted in different parts of the country and are not entitled to relief from this
Court.
11. The said contention is to be recorded to be rejected. It is not stated
that this Court does not have jurisdiction. On enquiry, it is also stated that no
such plea has been taken in the counter affidavits.
12. Since the respondents are admittedly situated at Delhi, certainly the
petitioners, wheresoever they may be posted, were/are entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court and the respondents/Government of India cannot so
compel, particularly the servicemen/ex-servicemen to file petitions in
different High Courts, wheresoever they may be posted, for recovery of their
dues and to their expense and inconvenience. Also, the
respondents/Government of India itself keeps on posting the said
officials/personnel from place to place and it will be ridiculous to say that
the petitions filed in one High Court would become infructuous on the
petitioner/s being posted out from the jurisdiction of that High Court.
13. Else it is not disputed that the petitioners herein are similarly placed
as the petitioners before the High Court of Madras and who, as aforesaid, by
the Supreme Court, have been ordered to be paid deputation allowance from
11th September, 2009 till the date of discharge. In fact the Supreme Court
also, upon being approached by some of the petitioners in these petitions,
has in para 19 of the judgment clarified that this Court can now proceed to
dispose of these writ petitions in view of the law which has been laid down
by the Supreme Court in the said judgment.
14. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed in terms of R. Thiyagarajan
supra. The respondents are directed to, within eight weeks, pay to each of
the petitioners the deputation allowance if any due to each of the petitioners,
w.e.f. 11th September, 2009 and till the date of discharge of each of the
petitioners. If the payments are not made within eight weeks, the amount
due to each of the petitioners shall also incur interest at 9% per annum from
the expiry of eight weeks till the date of payment.
15. The petitions are disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020
'pp'
