9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 East ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Civil Appeal No. 5850 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2018 - Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Kiran Bhardwaj, Shailender Saini, Ayush Anand, Shubhendu Anand and Sushma Suri, Advs. For Respondents/Defendant: Yatish Mohan, Sumit Kr. Jha, Subhash Chandra Sagar, Advs. for E.C. Vidya Sagar, Adv. JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. Director-General, CRPF, the Union of India and Additional-Director-General, group ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi Dated, the 3rd August, 2005 OFFICE MEMORANDUM SUB: ALLOWANCE AND FACILITIES FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVING IN THE STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES OF NORTH EASTERN REGION, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND LAKSHADWEEP. 3. The Order clarified that allowance to be admissible to the personnel who were actually working in the North East Region. The Respondents filed Original Application No. 778 of 2006 before Central Administrative Tribunal claiming grant of Special (Duty) Allowance as per the Order dated 14.12.1983. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and Order dated 05.11.2007 directed for sanction of Special (Duty) Allowance to the applicants for the period they have actually worked in the North Eastern Region. Against the Order of Tribunal, Appellant filed a Writ Petition in Allahabad High Court which was dismissed on 14.02.2008 aggrieved against which Order the present appeal has been filed. 4. The issue in this appeal is a very limited issue i.e. whether the Respondents were entitled for Special (Duty) Allowances for the period during which they were posted in North Eastern Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing their Headquarter in the North Eastern Region were not getting Special (Duty) Allowance because of condition that the Headquarters of such personnel should also be in North East. 2. The matter has since been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance and it has been decided to consider and allow the claim of CPF personnel deployed in North East Region in the light of criteria laid down in Finance Ministry's O.M. No. 20014/3/83-E-IV dated 14.12.1983 read with their O.M. No. 11(5)/97-E-II(B) dated 29.05.2002. It is also clarified that the allowance would be admissible only to the personnel who are actually working in the North East Region. 3. The issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure, E-II(B) Branch vide UO No. 315/05 dated 10.08.2005 and integrated Finance Division of this Ministry vide their Dy. No. 748/Fin. 11/05 dated 03.08.2005. Sd/- (Ranjanesh Sahai) Director (Police Finance) 8. Paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum indicates that it was decided to allow the claim of CPF personnel deployed in North Eastern Region in the light of criteria laid down in Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 read with Office Memorandu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.1986, benefit of which orders was claimed in the claim petition filed by the Respondents before the Tribunal. 13. A perusal of the letter dated 15.04.2005 (Annexure-P5) indicates that only reason for denying the Special (Duty) Allowance to the Respondents was that their Headquarters were in Shivpuri/Gwalior i.e. out of North Eastern Region although there was no denial that their posting was in North Eastern Region. 14. 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 cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure... 19. Another judgment which needs to be noticed with regard to Article 14 is a judgment of this Court in AIR 1970 SC 1453, Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.. In paragraph 23, following has been laid down: 23....When a law is challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieved by it. Having ascertained the policy and object of the Act the Court has to apply a dual test in examining its validity (1) whether the classification is rational and based upon an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others that are left out of the group and (2) whether the basis of differentiation has any ration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
