1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 883 of 1991 Date of decision:- 03.12.2010 Dr. T.M. Dak, Associate Professor, Rural Sociologist, Department of Sociology, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. ......Petitioner Vs Haryana Agricultural University through its Registrar, Hisar and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) This writ petition is directed against the actions of the respondents in recovering from the writ petitioner the deputation allowance that has been paid to him for a period of about 18 months beyond completion of a period of 04 years of deputation. The writ petitioner who joined the respondent-University on deputation on 17.03.1981 was paid deputation allowance until 17.09.1986, whereafter, he was absorbed in the University w.e.f. 18.09.1986. Relying on a set of instructions issued by the Government of India dated 29.11.1975 (Annexure R2) the respondent-University ordered for recovery of the deputation allowance paid to the writ petitioner beyond the period of 04 2 years of deputation. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has urged that after completion of a period of 04 years from the date of initial deputation the writ petitioner continued to work in the University on orders passed by the borrowing authority till he was absorbed w.e.f. 18.09.1986. Learned Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the University would be estopped from denying or seeking to recover deputation allowance beyond 04 years which had already been paid to the writ petitioner. A judgement of this Court reported in Gurdeep Kaur Sehgal Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1984(1), SLR, 493, has been pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner to contend that the recovery of excess 'deputation allowance is untenable and unjustified in law. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. However, the reply/affidavit filed by the respondents, which is on record, has been duly read and considered. The respondents seek to justify their action on the basis of the instructions of the Government of India dated 29.11.1975 which has been referred to earlier. The action of the respondents will have to be scrutinized on the touchstone of the statutory rules, if any, that may be in force and only if no such rules are in force, it will be permissible to look into the executive instructions. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has been fair in his submission that a set of rules governing deputation allowance is in force. Rule 6(5) of the aforesaid rules which appears to be relevant is in the following terms:- “Whenever extension of the period of deputation for the fifth year or the second 3 year in excess of the period prescribed in the Recruitment Rules is granted, it would be on the specific understanding that the officer would not be entitled to draw deputation (duty) allowance.” A reading of the aforesaid rules would go to show that the same are really a compilation of the different executive instructions issued from time to time. In the absence of any statutory Rules governing the matter, the provisions of Rule 6(5) as extracted above would be in conformity with the Government of India instructions dated 29.11.1975. If laid down norms govern the matter of payment of deputation allowance no direction to the respondent-University to act contrary to the norms in force can be made by the Court. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 12 of the compilation referred to as the Deputation (Duty) Allowance which permits the concerned authority to relax the rigor of any particular rule if so required. As a provision for relaxation exists the Court is of the view that, notwithstanding what has been recorded above, the concerned authority in the University may reconsider the case of the writ petitioner, particularly, in a situation where the extended period of deputation of the writ petitioner was with the consent of the University and furthermore as the writ petitioner has retired by this time. The University will finalize such reconsideration within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or a certified copy thereof. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) 4 03.12.2010 JUDGE Amodh