The High Court has no jurisdiction to pass directions for the territory which is outside its territorial jurisdiction - pan India direction by Madras HC to central government was without any authority under law; SC.
- 18:30Supreme Court of India
Justice Deepak Gupta & Justice Aniruddha Bose
The SC on April 3, 2020 {UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. R. THIYAGARAJAN} held that deputation envisages the assignment of an employee of one department/cadre/organisation to another department/cadre/organisation in the public interest. It was further that normally deputation also involves the consent of the employee. It was held that on transfer of the services in the case of deputation, the control with regard to the employee would also determine whether such employee was on deputation or not.
As far as the present case is concerned, it was held that, till 11.09.2009 the respondent continued to be under the control of his parent organisation i.e. CISF and was also getting his pay and allowances from the said authority. Therefore, though he as a member of his Battalion may have been serving the NDRF, it cannot be said that he was on deputation to the NDRF. It was held that his organisation had agreed to deploy some of its Battalions with the NDRF. However, the administrative and disciplinary control over such employees remained with the CISF. It was held that the emoluments were also paid by the CISF and, therefore, it cannot be said that the NDRF was the employer or master of the respondent. In such circumstances, it was held that up to 10.09.2009 the respondent could not be said to be on deputation even though as per the Rules he may have been described as a deputanionist. It was held, however, on 11.09.2009, the date when the Ministry of Home Affairs conferred the command and control of the Battalions drawn from the various Central Para Military Forces with the Director General, NDRF and from which date these personnel drew their pay from the NDRF they would be deemed to be on deputation with the NDRF.
It was also held that the High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It was held that it has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. It was held that matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the present case, it was held that matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken different view. It was held that the High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It was held that it has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country. It was held that it is true that sometimes the SC has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. It was opined that the SC exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. It was held that the High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved.
In view of the above discussion, the SC partly allowed the appeal and directed that the respondent shall be paid deputation allowance with effect from 11.09.2009 till 07.10.2011 when he was relieved from service. And the direction to implement the order of HC throughout India and to those employee who are not party, was set aside by the SC.
In the present case, the Division Bench of High Court of Madras held that not only the respondent but all other personnel of the NDRF drawn from other forces from 19.01.2006 up to 13.01.2013 would be entitled to be paid deputation allowance and the Central Government was directed to ensure that this amount was paid within a maximum period of six months. That judgment was set aside partly, as aforesaid, by the SC.