SUB-INSPECTOR SADHAN KUMAR GOSWAMI AND ORS. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 814 · Decided: 25-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUB-INSPECTOR SADHAN KUMAR GOSWAMI AND ORS. 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 25, 1996 . 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.) 
Service Law. 
Special Duty Allowance-Entitlement-Negatived by Supreme. 
Court-Whether party ·to the earlier judgment or not, whether belongs to 
C Officers in Group A,B,C or D-None is entitled to it-The judgments binds 
all-constitution of India, Article 141. 
D 
Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vijay Kumar & Ors., (1994) Suppl. 3 SCR 
716· 719, relied on. 
Constitution of India, Article 32 : 
Writ petition-Filing of-Advocate-on-Record to file a statement· and 
certificate that the.party was advised that the matter was covered by Supreme 
Court judgment and yet the party insisted to file the same-Only then the 
E Court would deal with such writ petitions. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 794 of 1996. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
F 
Sankar Ghosh and Amlan Ghosh for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
. This writ petition under Article 32 is one of the series of cases we 
have come across to reopen the judgment/orders of this Court rendered 
G under Article 136 of the Constitution of India after.their becoming final. 
The admitted facts are that the petitioners who joined service under 
the Spedal Security Bureau (SSB) in North Eastern Region of India, 
claimed special duty allowances as per order of the Central Government. 
The question was considered by this Court in Union of India v. S. Vijay 
H Kumar CA No. 3251 of 93 decided on September 20, 1994; .therein this 
814 
·--
SUB-INSPECTOR SX GOSWAMI v. U.0.1. 
815 
Court had held thus : 
A 
"We have duly considered the rival submissions and a•e inclined 
to agree with the contention advanced by the learned Additional 
Solicitor General, Shri Tulsi for two reasons. The first is that a 
close perusal of the two aforesaid memoranda:, along with what B 
was stated in the memorandum dated 29.10.i986 which has been 
quoted in the memorandum of 20.4.1987, clearly shows that al-
lowance in question was meant to attract persons outside the. North 
Eastern Region to work in that Region because of inaccessibility 
and tdifficult terrain. We have said so because even the· 1983 C 
memorandum starts by saying that the need for the allowance was 
felt for "attracting and retaining" the service of the competent 
officers for service in the North-Eastern Region .. Mention about 
retention has been made because it was found that incumbents 
going to that Region on deputation used to come back after joining D 
. thereby taking leave and, therefore: the memorandum stated that 
this period of leave would be excluded while counting the period 
of tenure of posting which was required to be of 2/3 years to claim 
the allowance depending upon the period of service of the incum-
bent. The 1986 memorandum makes this position clear by stating 
that Central Government civilian employees who have All lndi~ E 
Transfer Liability would be granted the allowance "on posting to 
any station to the North-Eastern Region". This aspect is made clear 
beyond doubt by the 1987 memorandum which stated that al-
lowance would not become payable merely because of the clause 
in the appointment order relating to All India Transfer Liability. F 
Merely because in the office memoranda of 1983 the subject was 
mentioned as quoted above is not be enough to concede to the 
submission of Dr. Ghosh. 
The submission of Dr. Ghosh that the denial of the allowance to the G 
residents would violate the equal pay doctrine is adequately met by what 
was held in Reserve Bank of India v. Reserve Bank of India Staff officers 
Association & Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 132; to which an attention has been 
invited by the Learned Additional Solicitor General, in which grant of 
special compensatory allowance ·or remote locality allowance only to the H 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A officers transferred from outside to Gauhati Unit of the Reserve Bank of 
India, while denying the same to the local officers posted at the Gauhati 
Unit, was not regarded as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 
In view of the above, this Court allowed the appeals of the State and 
B held that the respondents were not entitled to the allowances but whatever 
amount was paid upto the date of the judgment, was directed not to be 
recovered from them. The petitioners are relying upon the Office 
Memorandum dated July 11, 1996 which 

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