Cwp 3265 of_1981

Sheetal Matharu
Sheetal MatharuTeacher um St Joseph's Convent School, Hoshiarpur. Punjab 146001 INDIA
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before: - Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
C.W.P. No. 3265 of 1981.
Decided on 16-9-1981.
P.C. Wadhwa, I.P.S. (Petitioner)
Vs
State of Haryana (Respondent)
For the Petitioner: - Petitioner in Person.
For the Respondent: - Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate.
All India Services (Condition of Service Residuary Matters)
Rules, 1960. Rule 2 (b) - Increments…Grant of….Petitioner an I.P.S.
Officer……State Government issuing instructions for the grant of two
increments to members of Class I, II & III State Service on
improvement of qualifications…. Petitioner improving qualifications and
claiming increments…..State Government declining to give on the plea
that petitioner was I.P.S. Officer and governed by Central Rules….
Held, that the petitioner was entitled to increments. (Para 3)
Cases referred:
1. P.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Appeal No. 1475 (N) of
1972, decided on 5-3-1981.
2. D.D. Shri vs. Union of India and another, 1979 (3) S.L.R. 689.
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he
having passed the Master of Arts Examination appeared in the I.P.S.
competitive examination in 1951, and was selected therein. He was allocated
to the I.P.S. Cadre of the erstwhile Punjab State in 1952. On reorganisation of
the State in 1966, he was allocated to the State of Haryana. In June, 1974, he
passed the L.L.B. Examination and thus improved his qualification.
2. It is averred that the Haryana Government issued instructions on 20th
June, 1977, copy Annexure P-1, wherein it is provided that personal pay shall
be granted to all the employees belonging to Class-II and Class-III services
who improve their qualifications after joining Government service, if the
qualification (s) so acquired from a recognized University is/are higher than
the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post on which they were
recruited at the time of entry into Government service, In accordance with the
scales and conditions laid down therein. In the letter containing those
instructions, it is further stated that the officers who improve the qualifications
by obtaining Law degree or Post-Graduate degree would be entitled to two
increments. On July 26, 1978, the Government issued clarifications vide letter
Annexure P-2 wherein it is inter alia stated that even if an officer reaches the
maximum of his pay scale, he will be entitled to the benefit of Annexure P-1.
Later, the Government issued another Letter dated 23rd
October, 1978, copy
Annexure P-3, providing that Class-I Officers of the State service would be
entitled to the benefit of letter, Annexure P-I, read with letter, Annexure P-2.
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that the minimum qualification for
appearing in the I.P.S. Examination was B.A. degree and that by virtue of the
above said instructions, read with Rule 2(b) of the All India Services
(Conditions of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to
as the Rules, he became entitled to two increments in terms of the letter dated
20th
June, 1977. He has consequently prayed that the respondent be directed
to give him two increments as personal pay for improving his qualifications
during the service.
4. The respondent has controverted the allegations of the petitioner and
has Inter alia pleaded that the decision in this regard is to be taken by the
Central Government to which the matter has been referred and, therefore, the
writ petition is not maintainable.
5. The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to two increments as per instructions contained in Exhibit
P.1, read with instructions Exhibits P2 and P3, and Rule 2 (b) of the Rules. It
is not disputed that the instructions have been issued by the State
Government and that the members of Class I. Class II and Class III State
Services are entitled to the benefit of the said instructions. Now, it is to be
seen whether by virtue of Rule 2(b), the petitioner is entitled to that benefit. It
will be relevant to read Rule 2(b) which is as follows:-
“2. Power of Central Government to provide for residuary matters-
The Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the
States concerned, make regulations to regulate any matters relating to
conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Services, for which
there is no provision in the rules made or deemed to have been made under
the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951); and until such regulations are
made, such matters shall be regulated:-
(a) …….. ………. …….. ………
…….. ………. …….. ………
(b) In the case of persons serving in connection with the of fates of
a State by the rules, regulations and orders applicable to officers of the state
Civil Services, Class I, subject to such exceptions and modifications as the
Central Government may, after consultation with the State Government
concerned, by order in writing, make:-
(Emphasis supplied.)”
From a reading of the above Rule, it is evident that unless the Central
Government makes regulations to regulate any matters relating to conditions
of service of persons appointed to an All India Service, for which there is no
provision in the rules made, those matter shall be regulated in the case of
persons serving in connection in the affairs of the State by the rules
regulations and orders applicable to officers to the State Civil Services, Class
– I. Admittedly, there is no regulation made by the central Government
contrary to the instruction issued by the State Government. Thus by virtue of
the Central Services who are on the cadre of State. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of the instruction contained in Annexure P-1, read with
Annexure P-2 and P-3.
1. In the above said view, I am fortified by the observations of the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1475 (N) of 1972 (P.C. Wadhwa V/s State
of Haryana and others), decided on 5th
March, 1981. The facts in that case
were that the petitioner was holding a substantive rank of Deputy Inspector
General of Police, and was serving as Commandant General, Home Guards
and Director, Civil Defence. On 15th
April, 1969, he was sent to deputation
and his services were placed at the disposal of the Haryana State Electricity
Board. The order of the Government sending him on the deputation protected
his emoluments, but it did not mentioned any thing about deputation
allowance. So, he claimed it on the ground that it was admissible to the Class-
1 officers of the State by virtue of the order issued by erstwhile Punjab
Government dated 28th
/ 31st
January, 1963, and, therefore, he was entitled to
it under rule 2(b) of the rules. The Haryana Government did not accede to his
request. He filed a writ petition in this court which was dismissed in limine. His
appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court. Fazal Ali, J. speaking for the
court, observed thus:-
“We are unable to read in any of these rules any prohibition or bar to
the payment of deputation allowance to an officer of the IPS Cadre on
deputation to any of the authorities mentioned in rule 2(1) above. In the
instant case the appellant was sent on deputation to the Board which is
a body wholly or substantially owned by the State Government. The
mere absence of the provision for payment of deputation allowance
cannot be interpreted to mean an absolute bar to the receipt of such
deputation allowance by an IPS Cadre Officer, if other Rules permit
such a course of action. Similarly, Rule 9 of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954,
contains various clauses which merely protect the pay and salaries
admissible to an IPS Officer when sent on deputation. There is no
reference to any allowance or other emoluments in that Rules,
excepting pay which is clearly set out in Schedule III to those Rules.
We have gone through Sub-Rules (1) to (6) of Rule 9 and are unable to
find any limitation contained in these rules which could prevent the
appellant from getting deputation allowance.”
The above observations are fully applicable to the present case.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent has sought to urge that in view
of Rule 4 of the Rules, this court should await decision of the Central
Government to which a reference has been made by the State Government. I
regret may inability to accept the contention. The rule provides that if any
question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, or relating to the
application or interpretation of rules, regulations or orders referred to in
clauses (a) and (b) of rule 2, the Central Government shall decide the same. A
perusal of the Rule shows that it does not forbid the Court to decide the matter.
Moreover, Rule 2(b) has already been interpreted by the Supreme Court and
its decision is the law of the land. Therefore, after the decision of the Supreme
Court, no questions of interpretation of the Rule 2 arises so far as the facts of
the present case are concerned. He has also placed reliance on D.D. Suri vs.
Union of India and another, 1979 (3) S.L.R. 689. It is sufficient to say that the
facts of that case are distinguishable and the observations therein are of no
assistance to the learned counsel for the State.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the writ petition with costs and
direct the respondents to grant him two increments as contemplated by
Annexure P-I read with Annexures P-2 and P-3.
Petition allowed.
-------------

Recomendados

Special leave petition von
Special leave petitionSpecial leave petition
Special leave petitioncjarindia
3.1K views9 Folien
Covid19 - Kerala hc no arrests order von
Covid19 - Kerala hc no arrests orderCovid19 - Kerala hc no arrests order
Covid19 - Kerala hc no arrests ordersabrangsabrang
346 views14 Folien
Sc order uapa sep 9 von
Sc order uapa sep 9Sc order uapa sep 9
Sc order uapa sep 9sabrangsabrang
106 views6 Folien
Mp hc wp 12166 2021_final_order_06-sep-2021 von
Mp hc wp 12166 2021_final_order_06-sep-2021Mp hc wp 12166 2021_final_order_06-sep-2021
Mp hc wp 12166 2021_final_order_06-sep-2021sabrangsabrang
113 views9 Folien
20210908 sc order in case of term extension for ed chief von
20210908 sc order in case of term extension for ed chief20210908 sc order in case of term extension for ed chief
20210908 sc order in case of term extension for ed chiefsabrangsabrang
102 views30 Folien
Sc thwaha fasal judgement 28-oct-2021 von
Sc thwaha fasal judgement 28-oct-2021Sc thwaha fasal judgement 28-oct-2021
Sc thwaha fasal judgement 28-oct-2021sabrangsabrang
527 views46 Folien

Más contenido relacionado

Was ist angesagt?

Abhishek, sanjeev v state of up von
Abhishek, sanjeev v state of upAbhishek, sanjeev v state of up
Abhishek, sanjeev v state of upsabrangsabrang
84 views15 Folien
150522 exposing idiots and traitors amoung public servants-sharat sabharwal-i... von
150522 exposing idiots and traitors amoung public servants-sharat sabharwal-i...150522 exposing idiots and traitors amoung public servants-sharat sabharwal-i...
150522 exposing idiots and traitors amoung public servants-sharat sabharwal-i...Raviforjustice Raviforjustice
166 views2 Folien
Bom hc nagpur july 29 order von
Bom hc nagpur july 29 orderBom hc nagpur july 29 order
Bom hc nagpur july 29 orderZahidManiyar
146 views16 Folien
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New Delhi von
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiSecond Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New Delhi
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
171 views11 Folien
True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012 von
True copy of SLP (C)  No. 9854 of 2012True copy of SLP (C)  No. 9854 of 2012
True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012Om Prakash Poddar
1.8K views86 Folien
Madras hc it rules order sep 16 von
Madras hc it rules order sep 16Madras hc it rules order sep 16
Madras hc it rules order sep 16sabrangsabrang
91 views7 Folien

Was ist angesagt?(20)

Bom hc nagpur july 29 order von ZahidManiyar
Bom hc nagpur july 29 orderBom hc nagpur july 29 order
Bom hc nagpur july 29 order
ZahidManiyar146 views
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New Delhi von Om Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiSecond Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New Delhi
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New Delhi
Om Prakash Poddar171 views
Prevention of Atrocities to Schedule Caste and Tribes Act. Questions and Answers von Legal
Prevention of Atrocities to Schedule Caste and Tribes Act. Questions and AnswersPrevention of Atrocities to Schedule Caste and Tribes Act. Questions and Answers
Prevention of Atrocities to Schedule Caste and Tribes Act. Questions and Answers
Legal1.7K views
Appeal against Lodgment Order of Registrar SCI under Order XV Rule 5 of SCI R... von Om Prakash Poddar
Appeal against Lodgment Order of Registrar SCI under Order XV Rule 5 of SCI R...Appeal against Lodgment Order of Registrar SCI under Order XV Rule 5 of SCI R...
Appeal against Lodgment Order of Registrar SCI under Order XV Rule 5 of SCI R...
Om Prakash Poddar1.5K views
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr... von Om Prakash Poddar
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...
Om Prakash Poddar925 views
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25 von sabrangsabrang
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25
Delhi riots accused bail order nov 25
sabrangsabrang124 views
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment) von Lalith Babu
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Lalith Babu9.4K views
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information Commission von Lalith Babu
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information CommissionPolitical parties come under rti act- Central Information Commission
Political parties come under rti act- Central Information Commission
Lalith Babu4.8K views

Destacado

1 1 celebration night - Kipling von
1 1 celebration night - Kipling 1 1 celebration night - Kipling
1 1 celebration night - Kipling mcconaw
1.7K views24 Folien
cyber law von
cyber law cyber law
cyber law Rubina Shaikh
182 views10 Folien
Cyber crimes von
Cyber crimesCyber crimes
Cyber crimesRubina Shaikh
850 views17 Folien
Cyber crimes von
Cyber crimesCyber crimes
Cyber crimesRubina Shaikh
345 views17 Folien
New staff 14 15 von
New staff 14 15New staff 14 15
New staff 14 15mcconaw
2.9K views14 Folien
Kevin milla arbieto informatica piktochart backup data von
Kevin milla arbieto informatica   piktochart backup dataKevin milla arbieto informatica   piktochart backup data
Kevin milla arbieto informatica piktochart backup dataKevin Miguel Milla
272 views4 Folien

Destacado(12)

1 1 celebration night - Kipling von mcconaw
1 1 celebration night - Kipling 1 1 celebration night - Kipling
1 1 celebration night - Kipling
mcconaw1.7K views
New staff 14 15 von mcconaw
New staff 14 15New staff 14 15
New staff 14 15
mcconaw2.9K views
Kevin milla arbieto informatica piktochart backup data von Kevin Miguel Milla
Kevin milla arbieto informatica   piktochart backup dataKevin milla arbieto informatica   piktochart backup data
Kevin milla arbieto informatica piktochart backup data
Kevin Miguel Milla272 views
Muz cyber law assignment von Rubina Shaikh
Muz cyber law assignmentMuz cyber law assignment
Muz cyber law assignment
Rubina Shaikh3.7K views
Özgüven Eksikliği, 10 İnanılmaz Çözüm Yolu von Zehra Ezici
Özgüven Eksikliği, 10 İnanılmaz Çözüm YoluÖzgüven Eksikliği, 10 İnanılmaz Çözüm Yolu
Özgüven Eksikliği, 10 İnanılmaz Çözüm Yolu
Zehra Ezici1.7K views
Introduction to OpenVX von 家榮 張
Introduction to OpenVXIntroduction to OpenVX
Introduction to OpenVX
家榮 張4.5K views
ARM uVisor Debug Refinement Project(debugging facility improvements) von 家榮 張
ARM uVisor Debug Refinement Project(debugging facility improvements)ARM uVisor Debug Refinement Project(debugging facility improvements)
ARM uVisor Debug Refinement Project(debugging facility improvements)
家榮 張10.4K views
psychology of forgetting von Daisy ando
psychology of forgettingpsychology of forgetting
psychology of forgetting
Daisy ando19.8K views

Similar a Cwp 3265 of_1981

JANHIT_GUARANTEE_ACT-2011_Dr._Ruchi Kushwaha.pptx von
JANHIT_GUARANTEE_ACT-2011_Dr._Ruchi Kushwaha.pptxJANHIT_GUARANTEE_ACT-2011_Dr._Ruchi Kushwaha.pptx
JANHIT_GUARANTEE_ACT-2011_Dr._Ruchi Kushwaha.pptxDr Ruchi Kushwaha
71 views24 Folien
Reservation in promotion judgment sc 17 apr von
Reservation in promotion judgment sc 17 aprReservation in promotion judgment sc 17 apr
Reservation in promotion judgment sc 17 aprZahidManiyar
479 views13 Folien
Right to service von
Right to serviceRight to service
Right to serviceVijithUzhamalakkal1
138 views22 Folien
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgement.pdf von
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgement.pdfPaschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgement.pdf
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgement.pdfsabrangsabrang
124 views9 Folien
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 / 2013 (SLP. 1427 of 2009)- India- Pending disciplinary... von
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 / 2013 (SLP. 1427 of 2009)- India- Pending disciplinary...CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 / 2013 (SLP. 1427 of 2009)- India- Pending disciplinary...
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 / 2013 (SLP. 1427 of 2009)- India- Pending disciplinary...Jamesadhikaram land matter consultancy 9447464502
991 views16 Folien

Similar a Cwp 3265 of_1981(20)

JANHIT_GUARANTEE_ACT-2011_Dr._Ruchi Kushwaha.pptx von Dr Ruchi Kushwaha
JANHIT_GUARANTEE_ACT-2011_Dr._Ruchi Kushwaha.pptxJANHIT_GUARANTEE_ACT-2011_Dr._Ruchi Kushwaha.pptx
JANHIT_GUARANTEE_ACT-2011_Dr._Ruchi Kushwaha.pptx
Reservation in promotion judgment sc 17 apr von ZahidManiyar
Reservation in promotion judgment sc 17 aprReservation in promotion judgment sc 17 apr
Reservation in promotion judgment sc 17 apr
ZahidManiyar479 views
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgement.pdf von sabrangsabrang
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgement.pdfPaschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgement.pdf
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity judgement.pdf
sabrangsabrang124 views
Services under the union and the states von Prachi Tripathi
Services under the union and the statesServices under the union and the states
Services under the union and the states
Prachi Tripathi161 views
Dr Mohan R Bolla Law Lectures -Family pension scheme 1971 von Mohanrao Dr. Bolla
Dr Mohan R Bolla Law Lectures -Family pension scheme 1971 Dr Mohan R Bolla Law Lectures -Family pension scheme 1971
Dr Mohan R Bolla Law Lectures -Family pension scheme 1971
Mohanrao Dr. Bolla347 views
Case on fixation of minimum wages under – von Shobitash Jamwal
Case on fixation of minimum wages under –Case on fixation of minimum wages under –
Case on fixation of minimum wages under –
Shobitash Jamwal1.3K views
Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh von Satish Mishra
Central Administrative Tribunal ChandigarhCentral Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh
Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh
Satish Mishra222 views
Ktaka hc manual scavenging order march 16 von sabrangsabrang
Ktaka hc manual scavenging order march 16Ktaka hc manual scavenging order march 16
Ktaka hc manual scavenging order march 16
sabrangsabrang136 views
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i... von D Murali ☆
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...
D Murali ☆580 views
Const.Petition on the matter of selection or recruitment von Mohammed Hanif memon
Const.Petition on the matter of selection or recruitmentConst.Petition on the matter of selection or recruitment
Const.Petition on the matter of selection or recruitment
Akhanand KV Mandal Vs RPF Commissioner EPF Act Personnel Laws von Billy Sam Varghese
Akhanand KV Mandal Vs RPF Commissioner EPF Act Personnel Laws  Akhanand KV Mandal Vs RPF Commissioner EPF Act Personnel Laws
Akhanand KV Mandal Vs RPF Commissioner EPF Act Personnel Laws
Billy Sam Varghese1.4K views
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021 von ZahidManiyar
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021
ZahidManiyar167 views

Cwp 3265 of_1981

  • 1. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before: - Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. C.W.P. No. 3265 of 1981. Decided on 16-9-1981. P.C. Wadhwa, I.P.S. (Petitioner) Vs State of Haryana (Respondent) For the Petitioner: - Petitioner in Person. For the Respondent: - Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate. All India Services (Condition of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960. Rule 2 (b) - Increments…Grant of….Petitioner an I.P.S. Officer……State Government issuing instructions for the grant of two increments to members of Class I, II & III State Service on improvement of qualifications…. Petitioner improving qualifications and claiming increments…..State Government declining to give on the plea that petitioner was I.P.S. Officer and governed by Central Rules…. Held, that the petitioner was entitled to increments. (Para 3) Cases referred: 1. P.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Appeal No. 1475 (N) of 1972, decided on 5-3-1981. 2. D.D. Shri vs. Union of India and another, 1979 (3) S.L.R. 689. JUDGMENT (Oral) Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he having passed the Master of Arts Examination appeared in the I.P.S. competitive examination in 1951, and was selected therein. He was allocated to the I.P.S. Cadre of the erstwhile Punjab State in 1952. On reorganisation of the State in 1966, he was allocated to the State of Haryana. In June, 1974, he passed the L.L.B. Examination and thus improved his qualification. 2. It is averred that the Haryana Government issued instructions on 20th June, 1977, copy Annexure P-1, wherein it is provided that personal pay shall be granted to all the employees belonging to Class-II and Class-III services
  • 2. who improve their qualifications after joining Government service, if the qualification (s) so acquired from a recognized University is/are higher than the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post on which they were recruited at the time of entry into Government service, In accordance with the scales and conditions laid down therein. In the letter containing those instructions, it is further stated that the officers who improve the qualifications by obtaining Law degree or Post-Graduate degree would be entitled to two increments. On July 26, 1978, the Government issued clarifications vide letter Annexure P-2 wherein it is inter alia stated that even if an officer reaches the maximum of his pay scale, he will be entitled to the benefit of Annexure P-1. Later, the Government issued another Letter dated 23rd October, 1978, copy Annexure P-3, providing that Class-I Officers of the State service would be entitled to the benefit of letter, Annexure P-I, read with letter, Annexure P-2. 3. It is further stated by the petitioner that the minimum qualification for appearing in the I.P.S. Examination was B.A. degree and that by virtue of the above said instructions, read with Rule 2(b) of the All India Services (Conditions of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, he became entitled to two increments in terms of the letter dated 20th June, 1977. He has consequently prayed that the respondent be directed to give him two increments as personal pay for improving his qualifications during the service. 4. The respondent has controverted the allegations of the petitioner and has Inter alia pleaded that the decision in this regard is to be taken by the Central Government to which the matter has been referred and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to two increments as per instructions contained in Exhibit P.1, read with instructions Exhibits P2 and P3, and Rule 2 (b) of the Rules. It is not disputed that the instructions have been issued by the State Government and that the members of Class I. Class II and Class III State Services are entitled to the benefit of the said instructions. Now, it is to be seen whether by virtue of Rule 2(b), the petitioner is entitled to that benefit. It will be relevant to read Rule 2(b) which is as follows:-
  • 3. “2. Power of Central Government to provide for residuary matters- The Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned, make regulations to regulate any matters relating to conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Services, for which there is no provision in the rules made or deemed to have been made under the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951); and until such regulations are made, such matters shall be regulated:- (a) …….. ………. …….. ……… …….. ………. …….. ……… (b) In the case of persons serving in connection with the of fates of a State by the rules, regulations and orders applicable to officers of the state Civil Services, Class I, subject to such exceptions and modifications as the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Government concerned, by order in writing, make:- (Emphasis supplied.)” From a reading of the above Rule, it is evident that unless the Central Government makes regulations to regulate any matters relating to conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service, for which there is no provision in the rules made, those matter shall be regulated in the case of persons serving in connection in the affairs of the State by the rules regulations and orders applicable to officers to the State Civil Services, Class – I. Admittedly, there is no regulation made by the central Government contrary to the instruction issued by the State Government. Thus by virtue of the Central Services who are on the cadre of State. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the instruction contained in Annexure P-1, read with Annexure P-2 and P-3. 1. In the above said view, I am fortified by the observations of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1475 (N) of 1972 (P.C. Wadhwa V/s State of Haryana and others), decided on 5th March, 1981. The facts in that case were that the petitioner was holding a substantive rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, and was serving as Commandant General, Home Guards and Director, Civil Defence. On 15th April, 1969, he was sent to deputation and his services were placed at the disposal of the Haryana State Electricity
  • 4. Board. The order of the Government sending him on the deputation protected his emoluments, but it did not mentioned any thing about deputation allowance. So, he claimed it on the ground that it was admissible to the Class- 1 officers of the State by virtue of the order issued by erstwhile Punjab Government dated 28th / 31st January, 1963, and, therefore, he was entitled to it under rule 2(b) of the rules. The Haryana Government did not accede to his request. He filed a writ petition in this court which was dismissed in limine. His appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court. Fazal Ali, J. speaking for the court, observed thus:- “We are unable to read in any of these rules any prohibition or bar to the payment of deputation allowance to an officer of the IPS Cadre on deputation to any of the authorities mentioned in rule 2(1) above. In the instant case the appellant was sent on deputation to the Board which is a body wholly or substantially owned by the State Government. The mere absence of the provision for payment of deputation allowance cannot be interpreted to mean an absolute bar to the receipt of such deputation allowance by an IPS Cadre Officer, if other Rules permit such a course of action. Similarly, Rule 9 of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954, contains various clauses which merely protect the pay and salaries admissible to an IPS Officer when sent on deputation. There is no reference to any allowance or other emoluments in that Rules, excepting pay which is clearly set out in Schedule III to those Rules. We have gone through Sub-Rules (1) to (6) of Rule 9 and are unable to find any limitation contained in these rules which could prevent the appellant from getting deputation allowance.” The above observations are fully applicable to the present case. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent has sought to urge that in view of Rule 4 of the Rules, this court should await decision of the Central Government to which a reference has been made by the State Government. I regret may inability to accept the contention. The rule provides that if any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, or relating to the application or interpretation of rules, regulations or orders referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of rule 2, the Central Government shall decide the same. A perusal of the Rule shows that it does not forbid the Court to decide the matter.
  • 5. Moreover, Rule 2(b) has already been interpreted by the Supreme Court and its decision is the law of the land. Therefore, after the decision of the Supreme Court, no questions of interpretation of the Rule 2 arises so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. He has also placed reliance on D.D. Suri vs. Union of India and another, 1979 (3) S.L.R. 689. It is sufficient to say that the facts of that case are distinguishable and the observations therein are of no assistance to the learned counsel for the State. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the writ petition with costs and direct the respondents to grant him two increments as contemplated by Annexure P-I read with Annexures P-2 and P-3. Petition allowed. -------------