Judgment:
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The applicant is challenging the denial of deputation duty allowance for the period he has worked as Accounts Officer at DRDA.
2 The applicant retired from service on 30.6.2009 while working as Accounts Officer DRDA(L) Kavaratti. It is avered that while working as BDO at Amini Island he was transferred and posted as Accounts Officer, DRDA(L) Kavaratti in the year 2006. It is also stated that the above posting was made under Rule 110(a) of the Fundamental Rules as deputation from administration. He opted for deputation allowance as provided under para 4.1, appendix 5 under FR 9(25). He alleged that he was not paid the deputation allowance during the period he has worked as Accounts Officer DRDA(L). It is alleged that his request was not considered in view of the fact that the respondents in an identical case have taken a stand that posting at DRDA cannot be considered as Foreign Service, therefore, the deputation allowance is inadmissible. According to the applicant such a view point taken by the respondents is arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The representation submitted by the applicant has not evoked any response so far. According to the applicant similarly situated persons who worked in DRDA on deputation, namely P.Syed Sheik Koya, Asstt.Project Officer, M.C.Muthukoya, Asst.Project Officer, B.Shoukath Ali, Accountant have been paid deputation allowance. Hence this O.A.
3 The respondents in the reply statement stated that the applicant while working as Block Development Officer was transferred and posted as Accounts Officer, DRDA(L), Kavaratti under FR 110(a). It is submitted that the Administration is the authority to decide whether he is eligible for deputation allowance or not. In his case the Administration has categorically ordered that he is not eligible for deputation allowance. It is further stated that the Administration by order F.No.1/25/212/84-DRDA(L) dated 3.3.1998 has transferred the functions of the DRDA to the overall supervision, control and guidance of the District Panchayat. Accordingly all the staff of DRDA were transferred to the District Panchayat and they are at par with the staff working under the District Panchayat and are not getting any deputation allowance. Therefore, the applicant is not eligible to claim deputation allowance for the said period. Further, the request of the applicant was examined and forwarded to the Secretariat of Lakshadweep Administration, Kavaratti and the Secretary noted in the file that 'the matter has already been decided by letter dated 24.7.2002'. It is also submitted that the transfer of the applicant was made on humanitarian ground due to his serious illness followed by an operation and prolonged leave of more than six months and better medical facilities available in the referral hospital at Headquarters Island, Kavaratti. At that time he was not at all aggrieved about non-drawal of duputation allowance. Subsequently, at the fag end of his service he requested for deputation allowance. The averment of the applicant that similarly situated persons had been granted deputation allowance it is sbumitted that hey had been specifically ordered with the terms and conditions attached therein. It is further submitted that the employees exceeding the age of 56 shall not be considered for deputation as per the terms and conditions of deputation guidelines whereas the applicant crossed 56 years in June 2006. Therefore the applicant has no case.
4 The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating the facts as stated in the OA. He avered that the post of Accounts Officer can be filled up only through deputation as provided under the Service Rules. He refuted that the deputationist working in DRDA is under the control of District Panchayat whereas only the functions of the DRDA is brought under the control of District Panchayat.
5 The Tribunal by its order dated 6.12.2010 directed the respondents to file an additional affidavit clarifying the position that 'since all the employees in DRDA working under the control of District Panchayat are paid from the consolidated fund of India, no one is eligible for deputation allowance. If so, it may be stated in what circumstances, the deputation allowance is drawn in the case of Project Officer which is noted in Annx.A9'.
6 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7 The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been transferred to DRDA which is a Society under FR110(a) which reads as under:
FR110(a) No Govt servant may be transferred to foreign service against his will:
Provided that this sub rule shall not apply to the transfer of a Govt servant to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned for controlled by the Government.
The term 'Foreign Service' has also been defined in FR9(7) which reads as under:
"(7)Foreign service means service in which a Govt servant receives his pay with the sanction of Government from any source other than the consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of a State or the Consolidated Fund of a Union Territory."
8 Now the question to be considered is whether the applicant is receiving his pay from the Consolidated Fund of India/Consolidated Fund of Union Territory or from any other fund. In other words, it has to be ascertained whether the DRDA is funded from the Consolidated Fund of India/Consolidated Fund of Union Territory or from the funds of any other agency.
9 In compliance with the directions of this Tribunal the respondents have filed an affidavit stating that the applicant was transferred and posted in DRDA without observing the guidelines of deputation as his transfer was made on his personal request due to his ill health. It is also evident from Annexure R1(b) attached to the affidavit that the transfer of the applicant was issued under Rule FR 110. They have further clarified that the salary of DRDA employees are being paid from the funds released by the Govt of India, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi. In view of the above position it is abundantly clear that the transfer of the applicant as Accounts Officer in DRDA(L) was effected under FR 110(a) which does not provide for drawal of deputation allowance. Further more since all the employees in DRDA working under the control of District Panchayat are paid from the Consolidated Fund of India no one is eligible for deputation allowance. In view of the above position, I am of the considered opinion that persons deputed in DRDA by the Administration are not entitled to draw deputation allowances. In such circumstances the action of the Lakshadweep Administration in paying deputation allowance to the persons named in the OA is illegal. It is especially so, since by their own submission, the DRDA is brought under the administration control of District Panchayat and the staff of DRDA stand transferred there. The clarification called for on 6.12.2010 on payment of deputation allowance, to a few has not been explained by the respondents.
10 Judicial review come into play only if the action of the Administration is contrary to constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or violative by malafides or fail to give reasons amounting to denial of justice. In this case I do not find any situation warranting interference by the Tribunal. I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in denying the deputation allowance to the applicant.
11 In the result, in view of what has been stated above, I do not find any reason warranting interference by this Tribunal. The OA is dismissed. No costs.