HC Can Only Exercise Jurisdiction Over State Of Which It Is The High Court: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has observed that the jurisdiction of a High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court.

The bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose were considering an appeal filed by the Union of India against a Madras High Court judgment in which it issued (in a service matter) a direction which has pan India effect.

The single bench of the High Court, while allowing a writ petition filed by an NDRF employee, not only granted deputation allowance but also granted special allowance to the respondent. The Division Bench partly allowed the appeal of the Union of India and held that the petitioner was only entitled to deputation allowance. However, the Division Bench further went on to hold that not only the respondent but all other personnel of the NDRF drawn from other forces from 19.01.2006 up to 13.01.2013 would be entitled to be paid deputation allowance and the Central Government was directed to ensure that this amount was paid within a maximum period of six months.

One of the contention raised on behalf of the Union of India was that the High Court without any jurisdiction or prayer before it wrongly directed that such relief be given to all employees and that too from 2006. Agreeing with the submission, the bench observed:

"The High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, in our opinion, it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved."

Disposing of the appeal, the Court held that that deputation envisages the assignment of an employee of one department/cadre/organisation to another department/cadre/organisation in the public interest. It added that normally deputation also involves the consent of the employee. On transfer of the services in the case of deputation, the control with regard to the employee would also determine whether such employee was on deputation or not, the Court held while directing that the employee be paid deputation allowance with effect from 11.09.2009 till 07.10.2011 when he was relieved from service 

Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.2229 OF 2020
Case name:  UNION OF INDIA Vs. R. THIYAGARAJAN 
Coram: Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose
Counsel: ASG Madhavi   Divan,  Adv Dhirendra Kumar Mishra

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment