9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justiciability of the claim for dearness allowance. 2. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by the Resolution dated 16th September, 1948. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justiciability of the Claim for Dearness Allowance: The appellant contended that the grant of dearness allowance is a matter of grace and not justiciable. The Court examined Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules, which states that the grant of dearness allowance is at the discretion of the local Government. The Court held that since Rule 44 confers no right on government servants to receive dearness allowance and imposes no duty on the State to grant it, the prayer for a writ of mandamus is misconceived. A mandamus can only be granted when there is a right to compel the performance of a duty cast on the opponent. The Court further clarified that the claim in the petition was not for arrears of dearness allowance but to compel the Government to grant dearness allowance at a particular rate, which is a matter of grace and not of right. Consequently, the matters raised in the petition were deemed non-justiciable. 2. Alleged Violation of Article 14: The respondent argued that the Resolution dated 16th September 1948, fixing different dearness allowance rates for employees earning above and below Rs. 400 per month, was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the scheme adopted in the Resolution graded dearness allowance according to pay, with different rates for different slabs and a progressive reduction from the lowest to the highest category. The Court found no contention that fixing different rates for different slabs violated Article 14. Additionally, within any given slab, all employees were treated equally, except for a slightly higher rate for residents in Nagpur and Jubbulpore, which was not challenged as discriminatory. The respondent's primary contention was that the Committee, whose recommendations were accepted by the Government, adopted the rates suggested by the Central Pay Commission for employees earning over Rs. 400 but discarded these rates for those earning Rs. 400 or less, which was alleged to be discriminatory. The Court held that Article 14 does not authorize striking down a law of one State on the ground that it is discriminatory compared to a law of another State. The Court emphasized that the Union and States are distinct entities with their own executive and legislative powers, and Article 14 does not contemplate a comparative study of laws by different Governments to determine unconstitutionality. The Court further noted that the Committee approached the problem from a different angle than the Commission, considering factors such as the current level of prices, revised basic pay scales, and the financial resources of the State. The Committee's recommendations were independent, and any similarity in results with the Commission's recommendations was coincidental. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Resolution dated 16th September 1948, did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's petition was dismissed. No order as to costs was made either in the Supreme Court or the lower court. Appeal allowed.
|
