http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI GURU CHARAN DASS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          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."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    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.