DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF & ORS. versus JANARDAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 02-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF & ORS.
v.
JANARDAN SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5850 of 2011)
JULY 02, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Allowances – Special (Duty) Allowances –
Claim of – On facts, by the Government Order dated 31.03.1987,
benefit of Special (Duty) Allowances extended to CRPF personnels
posted and serving, and had their headquarters in North Eastern
Region – Respondents-pharmacists in CRPF posted in North Eastern
Region but their Headquarters were in Gwalior, sought Special
(Duty) Allowances for the period during which they were posted in
the North Eastern Region – However, case of Director General,
CRPF that respondents entitled to Special (Duty) Allowances only
with effect from 03.08.2005 when by the Office Memorandum, the
Government allowed the claim of CRPF personnel that benefits
would be extended to all whether their headquarters are in North
Eastern Region or not – Courts below granted Special (Duty)
Allowances to the respondents for the period they actually worked
in the North Eastern Region – On appeal, held: When the purpose
is to encourage and retain the personnel in North Eastern Region,
denial of benefit of Special (Duty) Allowance to those who although
posted and serving in North Eastern Region but have their
Headquarter outside the North East Region does not have any
rational nexus with object sought to be achieved – Perusal of the
Order dated 03.08.2005 does not indicate that the said benefit was
intended only after 03.08.2005 – Order uses the words ‘it is clarified
that allowance would be admissible to the personnels who are
actually working in the North East Region’ – Order was clarificatory
in nature – To differentiate the employees in two categories, whose
Headquarters are within North Eastern Region and whose
Headquarters are outside the North Eastern Region, clearly indicate
that classification is not founded on any intelligible differentia –
Classification as made in the GO dated 31.03.1987 did not pass
the twin test – Government having itself realised the error, corrected
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 81
81
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
the same by GO dated 03.08.2005 – Thus, it 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 – Order passed by the courts below
upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The main Office Memorandum by which Special
(Duty) Allowance was decided to be granted is dated 14.12.1983.
A perusal of the said Memorandum clearly indicates that 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 said benefit was extended to CRPF
personnels also. The benefit as extended by Office Memorandum
dated 14.12.1983 was revised from time to time and by 29.08.1986
revised orders were issued with effect from 01.10.1986, benefit
of which orders was claimed in the claim petition filed by the
respondents before the Tribunal. A perusal of the letter dated
15.04.2005 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. [Paras 9, 11-13][88-F; 89-C-F]
1.2 The purpose and object of granting the benefit 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, it cannot be
seen 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. [Para 14][89-F-H; 90-A]
1.3 A perusal of the Order dated 03.08.2005 does not
indicate that the said benefit was intended only after 03.08.2005.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
83
Paragraph 2 of the order uses the words “it is clarified that
allowance would be admissible to the perso

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.