Union of India & Ors. v. R. Thiyagarajan
Background
The respondent, a CISF constable, was sent along with his battalion to the newly created National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) in 2008. He later sought deputation and special allowances for his time with the NDRF, relying on a Delhi High Court ruling in a similar case. The Madras High Court's Single Judge granted him both allowances, and on the Union of India's appeal, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal, denying the special allowance but controversially extending deputation allowance not just to the respondent but to all NDRF personnel nationwide from 2006 onward, even though only the respondent had been a party before the court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that until 11.09.2009, the date the Ministry of Home Affairs formally transferred command, control, and pay responsibility for the NDRF battalions, the respondent's parent force (CISF) remained his real employer, so he could not be treated as on deputation for that earlier period despite being deployed with the NDRF. From 11.09.2009, when control and pay genuinely shifted to the NDRF, he was entitled to deputation allowance. The Court also held the Madras High Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief to all NDRF personnel across India when only one individual's case was before it: a High Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to its own state's territory, and it cannot usurp the role of other High Courts or exercise the pan-India powers reserved for the Supreme Court under Article 142. The appeal was partly allowed, limiting the respondent's deputation allowance to the period 11.09.2009 to 07.10.2011.
Lesson Learnt
An employee is only "on deputation", entitled to deputation allowance, from the date actual administrative control and pay genuinely transfer to the new organisation, not merely from the date of physical deployment; and a High Court cannot grant relief to people who were never parties before it or extend its orders beyond its own territorial jurisdiction.