9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2191 - SC - Indian LawsBenefits to the officers in service in North Eastern Region of the country - Special (Duty) Allowance - Appellant submits that the claim of Respondents for Special (Duty) Allowance was earlier rejected since, although they were working in the North East Region but their Headquarters were in Shivpuri/Gwalior - whether the benefit of the Office Memorandum is to be given with effect from 03.08.2005 only or the benefit of Special (Duty) Allowance is admissible after Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 was decided to be extended to CRPF personnel in the year 1987? HELD THAT - The main Office Memorandum by which Special (Duty) Allowance was decided to be granted is dated 14.12.1983 - the genesis of grant of Special (Duty) Allowance was posting of person in North Eastern Region. The said benefits were extended to attract and retain the services of the competent officers serving in North Eastern Region. The policy of law as is clear from the original Government Order dated 14.12.1983, it is clear that Government came with the scheme of Special (Duty) Allowance with the object and purpose of encouraging, attracting and retaining the services of the officers in the North Eastern Region. To differentiate the employees in two categories i.e. (i) whose Headquarters are within North Eastern Region and (ii) whose Headquarters are outside the North Eastern Region, clearly indicate that classification is not founded on any intelligible differentia - Further the differentia has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. When the purpose is to encourage and retain the personnel in North Eastern Region to deny the benefit of Special (Duty) Allowance to those who although posted and serving in North Eastern Region have their Headquarter outside the North East Region does not have any rational nexus with object sought to be achieved. The classification as made in the Government Order dated 31.03.1987 does not pass the twin test. The Government having itself realised the error has corrected the same by Government Order dated 03.08.2005 permitted the Special (Duty) Allowance to all who are posted and serving in North East Region irrespective of the facts as whether their Headquarters are within the North Eastern Region or outside the North Eastern Region - When the earlier classification as envisaged by Government Order dated 31.03.1987 itself not been valid to deny the benefit to those who were entitled to the Special (Duty) Allowance on the ground that Government came with the clarification only on 03.08.2005 shall neither be equitable nor shall stand the test of equality before the law. There are no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 5850 of 2011 Whether the Respondents were entitled for Special (Duty) Allowances for the period during which they were posted in North Eastern Region from the date of their posting in the North Eastern Region or only with effect from 03.08.2005 when the Office Memorandum was issued by the Government of India which allowed the claim of CPF personnel? HELD THAT - The purpose and object of granting the benefit as noticed above was to reward the persons who are posted in the North Eastern Region. The Tribunal has directed for granting the benefit to the Respondents for the period they have actually worked in the North Eastern Region. When the basis for granting Special (Duty) Allowance was posting in North Eastern Region, we fail to see that how the Respondents who were posted in the North Eastern Region would have been denied the Special (Duty) Allowance on the ground that their Headquarters are in Shivpuri/Gwalior. The benefit is attached to their posting in the North Eastern Region and denial on the ground that their Headquarters are in Shivpuri/Gwalior has no nexus with their claim. The Tribunal has allowed that claim which has been affirmed by the High Court. By Government Order dated 31.03.1987 Special (Duty) Allowance was extended to CRPF personnel posted and serving in North East Region who had their Headquarters also in that region. Obvious inference was that those personnel posted and serving in North East Region whose Headquarters were not in that region were not entitled to the benefit. Whether such classification for extending the benefit to one class of personnel who were both posted and serving there and had their Headquarter there and those personnel who were posted and serving there and having their Headquarter outside the North East Region is valid or not and passes the test of equality before law Under Article 14 is the question also needs to be considered. When the earlier classification as envisaged by Government Order dated 31.03.1987 itself not been valid to deny the benefit to those who were entitled to the Special (Duty) Allowance on the ground that Government came with the clarification only on 03.08.2005 shall neither be equitable nor shall stand the test of equality before the law - When the denial as noted did not pass the twin test of valid classification and was unconstitutional to deny the said benefit on the premise that Government corrected its error only on 03.08.2005, hence, with effect from 03.08.2005 only the benefit should be given does not appeal to reason. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Special (Duty) Allowance for CRPF personnel posted in the North Eastern Region. 2. Validity of classification based on the location of Headquarters for granting Special (Duty) Allowance. 3. Retrospective application of the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2005. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Special (Duty) Allowance for CRPF personnel posted in the North Eastern Region: The appeal questions the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) decision granting Special (Duty) Allowance to CRPF personnel posted in the North Eastern Region. The Government of India, through its Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983, extended certain benefits, including Special (Duty) Allowance, to officers serving in the North Eastern Region. The respondents, CRPF pharmacists, were posted in the North Eastern Region and claimed this allowance. The CAT directed the sanction of the allowance for the period they worked in the region, which the High Court affirmed. The main issue was whether the respondents were entitled to the allowance from the date of their posting or only from 03.08.2005, when a new Office Memorandum was issued. 2. Validity of classification based on the location of Headquarters for granting Special (Duty) Allowance: The appellants argued that the respondents were not eligible for the allowance earlier because their Headquarters were outside the North Eastern Region. The Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2005 clarified that the allowance would be admissible to personnel actually working in the North Eastern Region, regardless of their Headquarters' location. The respondents contended that the classification based on Headquarters location was unreasonable and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law. The Supreme Court noted that the purpose of the allowance was to attract and retain competent officers in the region. Denying the allowance based on Headquarters location lacked a rational nexus to this objective and failed the test of reasonable classification under Article 14. 3. Retrospective application of the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2005: The appellants contended that the benefit of the allowance should only be given prospectively from 03.08.2005. The Supreme Court observed that the Office Memorandum was clarificatory and intended to rectify an earlier classification error. The original Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 had already extended the allowance to CRPF personnel, and the subsequent clarification did not introduce a new benefit but merely corrected the application of the existing policy. Therefore, the benefit should be applicable retrospectively from the date of the respondents' postings in the North Eastern Region. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the CAT and High Court's decisions, affirming that the respondents were entitled to the Special (Duty) Allowance for the entire period they were posted in the North Eastern Region. The classification based on Headquarters location was deemed unconstitutional, and the allowance was to be granted retrospectively, not just from 03.08.2005. The appeal was dismissed.
|
