THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus G. C. MANDAWAR.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 13-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
J 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
G. C. MANDA WAR. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, 
VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.J 
599 
Constitution of India, At·t. 
14-Scale of dearness 
allowance 
fixed by Provincial Government-Different from the scale fixed by 
Central Government-Whether discriminatory-Rule 44 of 
Funda-
mental Rules-Grant of dearness allo111ance-Whether a right or a 
matter of discretion-Mandamus or any other Writ under Art. 226 
of the Constitution. 
The Government of Central Provinces and Berar (Now State 
of !lladhya Pradesh) 
fixed 
in 1948 
a sca1e of dearness allowance 
for its servants which 
though 
practically 
identical with the scale 
of dearness allowance fixed 
by 
Central Government in respect of 
salaries 
over Rs. 400 per mensem was less than it in 
respect of 
salaries 
for 
Rs. 400 per mensem 
or less. 
The petitioner-State 
government servant--challenged the validity of the order 
of the 
State 
Government on 
the 
ground that 
his 
fundamental 
right 
under Art. 14 of the Constitution had been 
violated 
inasmuch as 
he had a right to be equally treated 
with 
the Central Govern-
ment Servants similarly situated. 
Held, that under the provisions of Rule 44 of the Fundament-
al Rules it is a 
matter of discretion with the local Govern-
ment whether it will grant dearness allowance to any 
Government 
serYant and if so how much. It imposes no duty on the State to 
grant it and therefore 
no mandamus can issue to compel the State 
to grant it nor can any other writ or direction be issued in respect 
oi it as there is no right 
in the 
Government servant 
which is 
capable of being protected or enforced. 
Article 14 does not authorise the striking down of a law of 
one State on the ground that in contrast with a law of another 
State on the same 
subject its provisions 
are discriminatory. Nor 
does it contemplate a law of the Centre or of the State dealing 
with 
similar 
subjects 
being 
held to be 
unconstitutional 
by 
a 
process of comparative study of the provisions of two enactments. 
The sources of authority for the two statutes 
being different, 
Artide 14 can have no application. 
Therefore the scale of dearness allowance 
sanctioned by the 
Centred 
Government can furnish 
no ground for holding that the 
'"i 
aJlow;rnce sanctioned by the Government of Central Provinces and 
Berar is 
repugnant to 
Article 14. 
The State 
Government was 
entitled 
to fix the Government of India rates for one slab and fix 
different rates for another slab. 
1954 
May 13 
1954 
The State of 
Madhya Pradesh 
v. 
G. C. Mandawar. 
600 
SlJPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
The Punjab Province v. Pandit Tara Chand ([1947] F.C.R. 89), 
and State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid ([1954] S.C.R. 786) distinguished. 
Civ1L 
APPELLATE 
JuR1so1cTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 2 of 1954. 
Appeal under article 132(1) 
of the Constitution 
of India from the Judgment 
~nd Order dated the 10th 
September, 1953, of the I:ligh 
Court of Judicature at 
Nagpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 123 of 1953. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (T. P. 
Naik and I. N. Shroff, with him) for the appellant. 
M. K. Nambiar (Rajinder Narain, 
with him) for 
the respondent. 
B. Sen and P. K. Bose for 
the Intervener 
(State 
of West Bengal). 
1954. 
May 
13. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-The point for decision in 
this appeal is whether a Resolution of the Government 
of Central Provinces ancl 
Berar, now Madhya Pradesh, 
dated 16th 
September, 1948, 
fixing a scale of dearness 
allowance to be paid to its servants is repugnant to 
article 14 of the Constitution. 
The circt•mstances under which the above Resolution 
came to be adopted may be briefly mentioned. Conse-
quent on the war, there was a phenomenal rise in the 
price of foodstuffs 
and of other essential commodities, 
and among the persons worst hit by it were the 
Government· servants. 
As a measure 
of relief to them, 
the Central and the Provincial Government sanctioned 
a grant of grain allowances to them under various 
Resolutions passed in 1940. The scheme adopted 
by 
the 
Central 
Government 
was 
that 
its 
employees 
stationed in various Provinces received the same benefit 
as 
the 
respective 
Provincial 
Government employees. 
But 
this 
scheme was 
found 
to 
be 
unsuitable 
for 
employees · of the Central Government, as the allow-
ances 
granted by the Provincial Governments were no

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