Deputation allowance requires actual transfer of control and pay; nationwide relief cannot be granted in an individual proceeding.

Deputation allowance was held to depend on actual transfer of command, control and emoluments to the borrowing organisation. Personnel from CISF and other Central Para Military Forces were therefore not entitled to the allowance from the date of NDRF's constitution, but only from 11.09.2009 when the battalions came under NDRF command and pay began to be drawn from NDRF. The SC also held that relief in proceedings by a single employee could not be extended nationwide to all similarly placed personnel, as such directions exceeded the territorial and pleading limits of the case. The wider High Court directions were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether personnel drawn from CISF and other Central Para Military Forces were entitled to deputation allowance from the date of constitution of the NDRF or only from the date when command, control and pay shifted to the NDRF; (ii) Whether the High Court could extend relief to all similarly placed personnel across the country in proceedings instituted by a single employee.

Issue (i): Whether personnel drawn from CISF and other Central Para Military Forces were entitled to deputation allowance from the date of constitution of the NDRF or only from the date when command, control and pay shifted to the NDRF.

Analysis: Deputation implies assignment of an employee from one cadre or organisation to another, ordinarily involving transfer of control to the borrowing organisation. Until 11.09.2009, the respondent remained under the administrative and disciplinary control of CISF and continued to receive pay and allowances from his parent force, even though he was serving the NDRF. The deeming language in the rules did not by itself establish actual deputation for allowance purposes. Once the Battalions were brought under the command and control of the NDRF and pay started being drawn from the NDRF from 11.09.2009, the legal character of deputation for allowance purposes was satisfied.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to deputation allowance from 19.01.2006 or 18.04.2008, but became entitled to such allowance only from 11.09.2009 until 07.10.2011.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could extend relief to all similarly placed personnel across the country in proceedings instituted by a single employee.

Analysis: The relief sought before the Single Judge was confined to consideration of the respondent's representation, yet the High Court extended the benefit to all NDRF personnel and from an earlier date. A High Court exercises territorial jurisdiction within its own sphere and could not direct nationwide relief in a matter having pan-India implications, particularly when other proceedings were pending in different forums.

Conclusion: The direction extending relief to all similarly placed personnel was beyond jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part by confining deputation allowance to the period commencing on 11.09.2009 and by setting aside the wider directions granted by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: For deputation allowance, actual transfer of control and emoluments to the borrowing organisation is essential; a mere deemed deputation or administrative placement without such transfer does not suffice, and a High Court cannot grant nationwide relief beyond the territorial and pleading limits of the case before it.

---