SH. M.V. SRINIVASA AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 23-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SH. M.V. SRINIVASA AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS . 
.. 
JULY 23, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Se1vice Law :· Project Amenities--Grant of-Originally grallted to all 
project employees regardless of their place of work-Later Oil Withdra1v11 to 
those stationed not within project area, but in Taluk headqua1ters and else-
· where-Whether appellants treated disc1iminately-Held : No disc1iminatio11 c 
since the place of work is relevant. 
The Respondent-State Government made the officers and the staff 
working in the projects and stationed at the work spot entitled to amenities 
like free quarters, free electricity and free water supply as allowed in other D 
similar projects executed in the State. By a subsequent Jetter the State 
J. 
Government clarified that these amenities, irrespective of the head-
quarters of the officers, will be available even to the employees serving 
. under the project and are stationed beyond the project area and posted at 
the Taluk headquarters or any other place. These amenities were, later on, E 
withdrawn by Government Order dated 20th August, 1987 giving it 
retrospective effect from 19.12.1985. The appellants challenged it before 
the state Administrative Tribunal. The Ti:ibunal having dismissed their 
application, the present appeals were preferred. 
It was contended for the appellants that there can be no justification F 
to make a distinction . between those stationed in the project area and 
others stationed in Taluk headquarters and elsewhere in the matter of 
grant of amenities; that the original sanction having been made in terms 
of power exercised under Article 166 of the Constitution, the same can not 
G 
be withdrawn merely by a Government letter, and therefore, the hnpugned 
-<-
order had no value and no force· in the eye of law; and, that the amenities 
can not be withdrawn retrospectively. The Writ Petition filed in this Court 
·also raised the same questions. 
Dismissing the appeals and the Writ Petition, this court 
H 
17 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. Power to grant any special allowance and amenities to 
those employees who serve the Government and are posted in places with 
an unfavourable condition is within the discretion of the Government. 
Considering the nature of duties discharged by those who have been posted 
within a project area as well as non-availability of several basic amenities 
B of life, the Government would be well within its power to grant some 
incentives like project allowance and other amenities like free quarters, 
free electricity and free water supply. But such incentives and amenities 
cannot be claimed as of right by all employees who might have been 
employed in the project but are stationed outside the project area and are 
C serving in Taluk Headquarters or elsewhere. It is the place of work which 
entitles a group of employees to get incentives in question and not the 
employment in the project itself. In that view of the matter there is no 
substance found in the arguments advanced for the appellants that they 
were being treated discriminately. In the facts and circumstances no 
discrimination is found in the matter of grant of project allowance and 
D amenities fo those of the employees who were posted in the project site 
itself. [22-F-H; 23-A-B] 
2. The decision relating to withdrawal of the amenities was taken by 
the concerned Minister of the Department who was empowered under the 
E Rules of business to pass such order. [23-D] 
F 
3. There is no infirmity in the government letter dated 20th 
August, 1987 and in view of the same the project amenities cannot be 
granted to those employees residing in the Taluk headquarters and 
elsewhere from the date of the issuance of the letter. So far as the 
retrospectivity of the withdrawal is concerned, it appears that on 20th 
January, 1988, the Government issued a letter to all the Chief Engineers 
intimating therein that the Government letter dated 20th August, 1987, 
would be implemented only with effect from the date of issuance of the 
G letter and not with effect from any retrospective date. In view of the 
subsequent letter dated 20th January, 1988, the amenities in question 
have been withdrawn only from 20th August, 1987 and not with effect 
from 19th December, 1985 which was indicated earlier in the letter 
dated 20th August 1987. Thus the grievance on the question of 
H retrospectivity, no longer survives.

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