Delhi High Court
Shankar Yadav & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 September, 2020
$~VC-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th September 2020
+ W.P. (C) 1854/2017, C.M. Appl. No.21712/2020 (for early
hearing)
SHANKAR YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Santwana Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetley, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
%
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
C.M. Appln. No. 21712/2020 (of the petitioners for early
hearing)
1. Further proceedings in the writ petition 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. This application has 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 counsel for
the respondents appearing on advance notice, on enquiry state that
in terms of the judgment aforesaid of the Supreme Court, the
petition has to be decided and can be decided today itself.
4. The application is allowed and disposed of. The writ
petition, with the consent of the counsels, is ordered to be taken up
for hearing today itself.
W.P. (C) No. 1854/2017
5. The 216 petitioners filed this petition (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 petition was entertained and pleadings therein ordered to
be completed. However thereafter, as aforesaid, the petition was
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 petitioners
before the High Court of Madras, has held that the entitlement to
deputation allowance is w.e.f. 11th September, 2009 and till the
date the petitioner therein was relieved from service.
8. The counsel for the petitioners states that this petition 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 counsel for the respondents has 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 counsel for the respondents that
out of 216 petitioners who have jointly filed this petition, most of
them are admittedly posted in different parts of the country and are
not entitled to relief from this High 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 affidavit.
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 separate 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 petitioner before the High Court of Madras and who,
as aforesaid, by the Supreme Court, has been ordered to be paid
deputation allowance from 11th September, 2009 till the date of
discharge. In fact the Supreme Court, upon being approached by
some of the petitioners in this petition, has in para 19 of the
judgment clarified that this Court can now proceed to dispose of
this writ petition in view of the law which has been laid down by
the Supreme Court in the said judgment.
14. Accordingly, the petition is 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 petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
ASHA MENON
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2020
pkb
