A
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
PRA TAP SINGH AND ORS. ETC.
DECEMBER 14, 1994
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKA TACHALA, JJ.]
Defence Civilian Employees-Participation in operations 'Blue Star'
and 'Wood Rose'-Order regarding .entitlement of ration allowance-
Interpretation of
C
In appeal to this Court on the question whether the respondents
D
E
F
are entitled to the benefit of ration allowance in terms of Government
orders dated 20th December 1985:
Allowing the appeals of the Union oflndia, this Court
HELD: The Tribunal erred in granting the benefit of free ration
allowance to the respondents. The civilians working in ordinance
factories are the entitled category. But having drawn the free ration
they are not entitled to ration allowance payable since it was only in
lieu of the latter. Such of these civilian employees who are not entitled
categories are not eligible to free ration. The order was made
applicable only to such of these entitled civilians working in defence for
free ration and free ration allowance was given in lieu of free ration as
they were not drawn while in operation. The non-entitled categories,
therefore, are not entitled to claim the ration allowance. (627 C to DJ
CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4931of1994
Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.92 of the Central Adminis-
trative Tribunal, in Chandigarh in Regn.No. 242/Pb.of 1989.
V.C. Mahajan, Ashok K. Srivastava, Ms. Sushma Suri, S.N. Terdol,
G
P.N. Puri and P. Narasimhan for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
We have heard counsel for the parties. In the proceedings of the
Ministry of Defence letter bearing No.B/19231/0rganisation 4 (Civil) (d)
H
256-S/D (Civil -II) dated December 20, 1985, the President of India
626
,_
U.0.1. v. PRATAP SINGH
627
directed thijt the civilian employees who participated in 'Blue Star' and A
'Wood Rose' operations be paid ration allowance. The order reads thus :
"the President is pleased to decide that ration allowance in lieu of free
rations will be admissible retrospectively to the entitled categories of the
Defence civilian employees deployed in connection with 'Operation Blue
Star' and 'Operation Wood Rose' from the dates mentioned thereunder
namely 'Operation Blue Star' between June l, 1984 to July.23, 1985 and B
'Operation Wood Rose' from June l, 1984 to February 28, 1985." The
question is whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of ration
allowance in lieu of free ration. It is now conceded across the bar that such
of those civilian employees who participated in those operations are entitled
to ration allowance in lieu of free ration. Such of these civilian working in
ordinance factories are the entitled category and it is not disputed that they C
had drawn the free rations. Having drawn the free ration they are not
entitled to ration allowance payable since it was only in lieu of the latter.
Such of these civilians employees who are not entitled categories are not
eligible to free ration. The order quoted earlier was made applicable only to
such of these entitled civilians working in defence for free rations and free
ration allowance was given in lieu of free ration as they were not drawn D
while in operation. The non entitled categories, therefore, are not entitled to
claim the ration allowance. Under these circumstances the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh was wholly unjustified in granting
the benefit of free ration allowance to the respondents by its order dated
May 18, 1992.
E
These appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeals allowed.
Lex