34. On the basis of the analysis made by us in the preceding paragraphs, we have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner was entitled to be paid the amount of Foreign Allowance equivalent to the Foreign Allowance admissible to the Second Secretary rank officer working in the Indian Mission and further that any reduction in the said amount will amount to violation of the terms and conditions on which the petitioner’s appointment on deputation was made as an expert at IGMH at Male (Maldives). The terms, on which an order of appointment of deputation of an employee is made, does not bind the employee alone; the parent department as also the borrowing department are equally bound by such terms. In case the contention of the respondent is accepted, the same will amount to explicit violation of the terms and conditions of the deputation, on acceptance of which the petitioner had given his consent to be appointed on deputation. We are, thus, of the opinion that the reasons given in the impugned order dated 10th January 2001, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected, are untenable. We also find that the Government order dated 4th September 1995, which fixes Rs. 40,845/- as Foreign Allowance admissible to the petitioner is also untenable; in fact, the petitioner would be entitled to the same amount of Foreign Allowance which was made available to the Second Secretary level officer working with the Indian Mission at Male (Maldives), i.e., Rs. 50,340/-. Reduction in the amount of Foreign Allowance was, thus, illegal.
