1997 INSC 0476
                                             Union of India and Others

                                                           Vs

                                                 Guru Charan Dass

                                          Civil Appeal No. 676 of 1988

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, D. P. Wadhwa JJ)

                                                      10.04.1997

                                                        ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
at Cuttack in TA No. 267 of 1986 on 26-5-1987.

2. The admitted facts are that the respondent was working in Hirakud Project prior to 30-3-1960.
Consequent upon the closer of the Project, offer was given to several persons including the
respondent for seeking appointment either in the State Service or in the Government of India
Service or to get retrenched. The alternative appointment in a government project, namely,
Dandakarnya Project was given to the respondent by letter dated 9-3-1960 by the Chief
Administrator of that Project. The letter of appointment read as under :

                  "The post in question carries the pay scale of Rs. 180-10-300 ... plus usual dearness
                  allowances admissible to Central Government employees. In addition the following
                  allowances have been sanctioned for the employees of the Dandakarnya Project and
                  Sri Guru Charan Dass will be entitled to them in addition to the extent admissible.

                  (i) 25% deputation allowance, if he is already a permanent/quasi-permanent
                  employee, (ii) 20% project allowance regardless of whether he is permanent/quasi-
                  permanent or not, and (iii) rent-free tenanted accommodation in the area or the
                  present.

                  3. In case the post is acceptable to Shri Guru Charan Dass on these terms and
                  conditions, he may be relieved from his duties so as to join as Publicity Officer at
                  Koraput immediately but act later than 4-4-1960 after availing joining time,
                  admissible under the rules."

3. Obviously the respondent accepted the offer of appointment and in terms thereof by letter dated
2-4-1960, he was appointed temporarily as Publicity Officer. Since deputation allowance was not
paid to him, he filed a writ petition in the High Court. Consequent upon the constitution of the
Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal for disposal. The Tribunal has found as a
fact that his continuance in Hirakud as UDC was on permanent basis and that, therefore, he is
entitled to the deputation allowance.

4. Mr. P. P. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that since the
respondent came to be appointed afresh on temporary basis in terms of the appointment letter, he is
not entitled to the deputation allowance. We find no force in the contention.
5. In view of the offer of appointment given to the respondent and the respondent having accepted
the same, he is entitled to the deputation allowance of 25%. Since his status as a permanent UDC
was not disputed before the Tribunal and no tangible contra-material has been placed before us
justifying acceptance of the said finding recorded by the Tribunal, the respondent is entitled to
deputation allowance as directed by the Tribunal.

6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.