R.L Anand, J.:— By this judgment 1 dispose of C.W.P No. 1137 of 1985 titled V.K Singla v. State of Haryana and C.W.P 2323 of 1987 titled J.N Garg v. The State of Haryana, as in the opinion of this Court both these writ petitions can be disposed of by one judgment as common question of law and fact is involved in both these cases and the facts are taken from C.W.P No. 1137 of 1985.
2. The case set up by the petitioners in the writ petition are that they are Engineering Graduates and belong to a batch of 176 Assistant Engineers selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission for recruitment in terms of the provisions of the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class II, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970. 176 successful candidates fell into two categories. The first category comprised of those officers who in consideration of their ad hoc service in the Irrigation Department were straightway given the sub divisional charge by waiving the condition of in-service-training and petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 of C.W.P No. 1137 of 1985 belong to that category while petitioners No. 4 to 7 belong to the second category who were imparted the prescribed in-service-training. All the petitioners after their usual attachment with various circulars of the parent department (Irrigation Branch) got their first appointment on deputation with Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Ltd. They joined in their respective posts. The posting of the petitioners with respondent No. 2 were in pursuance of some arrangement between the two respondents. The petitioners never sought such employment with respondent No. 2 on their own. Fourth petitioner has been reverted to the parent department in June 1984 while other petitioners are still continuing on deputation with respondent No. 2. According to the petitioners their posting in the Corporation i.e respondent No. 2 even on first appointment was nothing but on deputation to a foreign service in public interest and therefore, by treating their appointment on foreign service they should be granted the deputation allowance as per rules. The petitioners have been denied the payment of the deputation allowance for all the years when they have worked with respondent No. 2 in spite of the various representations made by them in this regard. Hence the writ petition.
3. It was also made out in this writ petition that it is obvious that employees on deputation form one class distinct from those posted in the parent department. There can be no further selective sub classification within that class, founded upon the mere exigency of the time of such deputation. In other words, those whose services are placed at the disposal of the Corporation straightway on their initial appointment cannot possibly be discriminated against from those who are so deputed after puting in one or few days service in the department. Such like mini classification runs counter to the constitutional mandate of equality during employment. The petitioners did not get the relief from the department in spite of the legal notice. With this background the petitioners have made a prayer that directions be given to the respondents for the release of the deputation allowance to the petitioners.
4. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. According to the stand of the respondents, the petitioners were not given the positing on first appointment on deputation. They were posted in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation be respondent No. 2 against the vacancy available there and as per their demand the posting of the petitioners were not on deputation on foreign service. The Government has enhanced the rate of deputation when the transfer of the employee concerned on deputation is involved with the change of the station/headquarters. Since no change is involved in the case of the petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled to any deputation allowance. Since the petitioners were posted with respondent No. 2 on their first posting against vacancies available there as per the demand of the Government, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were on deputation. Moreover, State Government did not agree to the payment of deputation allowance in relaxation for the rules/instructions and this decision of the Government was duly conveyed to respondent No. 2. No discrimination has been done. No employee of the State Government who was on his posting in the State owned/controlled Corporation etc. after the issuance of the Government instructions dated 11.5.1977 has been paid deputation allowance. In short the stand of the respondents is that since the petitioners were appointed on their first posting with Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation, therefore, they are not entitled to the deputation allowance, ft was also submitted by the respondents that if the Government has granted any deputation allowance to wrong persons that matter shall be inquired into and the necessary recoveries will be made.
5. Respondent No. 2 also filed the separate written statement and the stand of this respondent is that as per the Government instructions, the petitioners are not entitled to the deputation allowance.
6. I have heard Shri K.K Jagia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Vijay Dahiya, AAG, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
7. The point involved in this case is very simple. Whether the petitioners who were posted for the first time with respondent No. 2 are entitled to get the deputation allowance and whether their services can be treated as a foreign service so as to entitle the petitioners to get the benefit of the deputation allowance. The matter can be examined from two angles; one from the angle of the appointment letter which was issued to the petitioners and secondly whether the rules permit or not.
8. I have examined this matter from both the angles and am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the deputation allowance as their appointment with respondent No. 2 was not a foreign service. Annexure P-1 is the appointment letter which was issued by the Government i.e Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government Haryana Irrigation Department, Chandigarh. Para No. 1-A of the appointment letter runs as follows:—
“You will be appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mech/Electrical and will be given charge of Sub Division or equivalent post in the Irrigation Department or other organisations where the Haryana Government has its interest”. Government of Haryana has interest with respondent No. 2. It is the stand of respondent that posts were notified by keeping in view the demand of the various organisations and Corporations. In these circumstances, respondent No. 2 though is a separate legal entity in the eyes of law but Haryana Government has interest in that organisation. Therefore, the petitioners could be appointed straightaway in that organisation and this will not amount a posting on transfer or a posting on deputation.
9. Now, let us examine the case from another angle. Rule 10.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana lays down that no Government employee may be transferred to foreign service against his Will provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to the the transfer of a Government to the service of a body, incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government.
10. The above Rule will lay down that no Government employee can be transferred to a foreign service against his Will but the above principle shall not apply to the transfer of a government employee to the service of a body which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government. In order to consider a transfer to a foreign service, it is necessary that there must be first posting at a place and from that he is posted to other wing of the Government. Here is the case where the petitioner was never posted in any department. He was straightaway posted with respondent No. 2 an organisation in which the State of Haryana had the interest. Therefore, the petitioner also cannot take the benefit of Rule 10.2
11. Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1991 (1) SLR 471 Satnam Singh v. State of Haryana. The ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the case in hand as the petitioner in the cited case joined the department and then he was sent to deputation abroad and thereafter he was sent to the Corporation but here is a case where the petitioners were posted in terms of the appointment ietter. Thus, they are not entitled to the benefit of deputation allowance. Therefore, there is no merit in the aforesaid two writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.
12. Petition dismissed.