dofp2024_00106 — Applicant, an employee of CISF who though was sent to NDRF on 18-4-2008, continued to be member of his Battalion and could not be said to be on deputation. Orders of High Court is limited to the State in which it is located

Applicant, an employee of CISF who though was sent to NDRF on 18-4-2008, continued to be member of his Battalion and could not be said to be on deputation. Orders of High Court is limited to the State in which it is located — Case details: C.A. No. 2229 of 2020, involving an employee of CISF who was sent to NDRF in April 2008 but continued as a member of his Battalion, not on deputation. The case discusses the applicant's... — Facts: Applicant was recruited as a Constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) was formed for the purpose of specialized response to disaster situation with effect from 19-1-2006 by the Ministry of Home Affairs Rules for Disaster Management (NDRF) Rules, 2008 framed and notified on 13-2-2008, but enforced with effect from 11-9-2009. Other details of Constitution of Force and related rules and conditions are noted in the judgment. Delhi High Court held in the case of Brij Bhushan v. Union of India [ 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11656 ], held that the writ petitioner was deemed to be on deputation in terms of sub-rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the Disaster Management (NDRF) Rules, 2008 and O.M. No. 6-8-2009-Estt. (Part II), dated 17-6-2010 which is reproduced. Relying on the above rule, Delhi High Court held that all persons who joined NDRF would be treated to be on deputation from the date they joined the NDRF. Special Leave petition against that judgment was dismissed in the judgment, Union of India v. Brij Bhushan [ 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1861 ]. In the instant case, the Respondent filed writ pertition in the Madras High Court which allowed the writ petition, R. Thiagarajan v. Union of India [ 2016 SCC OnLine Mad. 20518 ]. As per that order, the learned Single Judge granted deputation allowance and also granted special allowance to the Respondent. The judgment further elaborates on points of control, etc., to the deputed CISF personnel deputed to NDRF. Based on the above details, the Apex Court in this case held: