IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 356 (SB) of 2011 Debesh Chandra Pal ……. Petitioner Versus H.M.T. Ltd. and others. ….Respondents Present: Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. Per: Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the order, by which he has been sent to Delhi on deputation. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of salary from April, 2011 onwards. The petitioner has also prayed for declaring Clause 2.1.1 of the Office Order dated 15.10.1990 as illegal. The contention of the petitioner is that he has been sent on deputation against his consent and that Clause 2.1.1. giving an allowance of maximum of Rs. 750/- per month is totally meager and on such amount, it is not possible to make both ends meet in a metropolitan city like Delhi, where the petitioner has been sent on deputation. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of his salary from April, 2011. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds from a perusal of Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which relates to the Rules regarding deputation and temporary transfers, that it is a part of the service condition that the petitioner may be sent on deputation. The maximum period as indicated in Clause 3.1.1. is two 2 months extendable till one year. In Clause 2.1.1., the maximum deputation allowance payable is Rs. 750/- per month. The Court does not find this contention to be onerous or offensive, which requires quashing of the said condition. No doubt, on account of inflation the salary and other allowances are required to be increased to match the inflation. The employers should, accordingly, consider the revision of the allowances to be paid on deputation. However, this Court does not find it to be a ground to stay the impugned order. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the impugned order and we, accordingly, dispose of this petition directing the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the authority concerned for payment of his salary since April, 2011 and may also make a representation with regard to increase in the deputation allowance. If such a representation is made, the authority concerned will consider and decide the matter expeditiously. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 5.12.2011 5.12.2011 Rathour