High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records leading to and connected with the impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No 021175612021 dated 06.'l 1.2023 and the rejection order issued in proceedings No SCR lP- HQl229lE-Admn/tRCTC/EPF dated 03.08.2020 and issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order as deemed fit quashing the impugned orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No 021175612021 dated 06.11.2O23 and the rejection order issued in proceedings No SCR lP- HQI2291E-Admn/IRCTC/EPF dated 03.08.2020 and ii) Consequently direct the respondents to pay the Deputation allowance at the rate of 10 percent instead of 5 percent and special Allowance @ 25 percent and cash compensation in lieu of the petitioner working on holidays for the period the petitioner worked as RSo with interest at the rate applicable to GpF deposits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.TRINADHA RAO counsel for the Respondents: sRr vrJAy KUMAR, sr sc FoR CENTRAL Gow The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.33833 of 2O24 ORDER: Eer the llon'ble Si Jvstice Abhinand Kumar Shaviti) Aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2023. passed in O.A.No.756 of 2O2L by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad(for short, the TribunalJ, the present Writ Petition is filed. -

2. Heard Sri G. Trinadha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vij ay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that while the petitioner was working as Yard Master at the Guntakal Division, he was selected and posted as Vigilance Inspector. Subsequentiy, he was selected as Inquiry Inspector in the Vigilance Branch, and while he was working in the said post, he was selected and posted as Railway Sectional Officer (RSO) on deputation basis in CBI, Hyderabad from O5.O4.2OO7 to 10.03.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that as per the Rules, the petitioner is entitled for l I I 2 AKS,J & E'ID,J wP,33833 2024 deputation allowance @ 10% of the basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs.4OOO/-per month, but the respondents have granted only 5o/o of deputation allowance instead of IO%o to which the petitioner is entitled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of LOoh deputation allowance in terms of Office Memorandum, dated 17.06.2O1O, but the respondents have considered and rejected the same uide proceedings, dated 03.O8.2O2O.

4. Aggrieved by the rejection order, dated O3'O8.2O2O, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by Iiling O.A.No.756 of 2O2l and the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A. uid.e order, dated 06.11.2023, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that if an employee is sent on deputation within the same station, he is entitled for 5%o of deputation allowance. Whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner was Guntakal Division to Hyderabad Division to a\ AI(S,J & ETD,J wp 33833 2024 work as Vigilance Inspector and later, he was selected and posted as RSO in CBI, which is part ol a different category from the Guntakal Division. Therefore, the 1>etitioner is entitled lor 1O7o of deputation allowance. This lact was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and has mechanically dismissed the O.A. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, clated

06.11.2023 in O.A.No.756 of 2021 and further direct the respondents to pay deputation allowance @ lOo/o of the basic pay of the petitioner in terms of Oflice Memorandum, dated 17.06.2O1O.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the petitioner is not entitled for LO%o of deputation allowance, as he has been sent within the Unit of Guntakal Division. Learned Standing Counsel had further contended that the petitioner is not discharging his duties as Investigating Officer in the CBI, he is merely assisting the CBI, hence, he is not entitled for LOTo of deputation allowance.

7. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the petitioner was never sent on deputation, but he was sent l I :'.4:: AKS,J & ETD,J wp_33833_2024 from Guntakal Division to Hyderabad. Therefore, he is not entitled for deputation allowance. Consequenfly, the respondents were justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner and the Tribu4al was justified in dismissing the O.A. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8' This court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that a perusar of office Memorandum, dated lZ.06.20\0 makes it clear that if an employee is sent on deputation within the same station, he is entitled for deputation allowance payable @ S%o of his basic pay. However, in the instant case, the petitioner was sent from Guntakal to Hyderabdld to work as Vigilance Inspector and later, he was deputed to work as Rso in the CBL Therefore, the pefitioner was not sent on deputation within the same station. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for lO%o of deputation allowance. Hence, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the O.A. Therefore, the order, dated 06.t 1.2o23passed in O.A.No.7S 6 of 2021 by the Tribuna.l is liat .""o]11,,"",::::::::**.o,ng,y, it is set aside o consider the "n. AKS,J & ETD,J 1\? 33833 2024 case of tht petitioner lor grant of IOo/o of deputation allowance in terms of Office Memorandum, dated

17.06.2070.

9. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/- P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR \" \, iisecrtoN oFFtcER To \ PS . The General Manager, Union of lndia, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam' 3rd floor, Secunderabad. i'h; Pil;ip;itnl.t p.rtonn"l officer, South central Railwav' Rail Nilavam Secunderabad. . fi;t;"i; Divisionat personnet officer, Guntakal Division, south central niifwav. Crntakal Andhra Pradesh' ffiU6d6 siiiT'driinnoHA RAo, AdYo!?!g t^oJggl . ffi EE iI 5Hi il VrJnv kuvnn, sr sc FoR cENTRAL Gow [oPUC] . Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 5 o K. b HIGH COURT DATED;28 tO1t2O2S ORDER WP.No.33833 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 W 1HE s 14 14: 21 FEB 206 ^s ( z C) .:) o o \