UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. versus B. PRASAD, B.S.O., AND ORS. ETC .

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 17-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
B. PRASAD, B.S.O., AND ORS. ETC .. 
FEBRUARY 17, 1997 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
Special Duty Allowance-Government of India Proceedings dated 
C 17.4.1995-Defence Civilian employees-Posted in North- eastern 
region-Entitlement to special Duty Allowance and Special Compensatory 
(Remote Locality) Allowance-Held, the defence civilian personnel deployed 
at the border area for suppolt of operational requirement, face th~ imminent 
hostilities suppolting the Amiy personnel deployed there and as such they 
alone require the double payment-But the defence civilian employees posted 
D, at the Modified Field Area (i.e. "barracks"), as the area is a lesser risking area, 
·. shall not be entitled to double payment-Government would modify the order · 
accordingly-Goveiument would not recover any payments made of the 
period prior to 17.4.1995. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1572 of 
1997 Etc. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Gauhati, in RA. No. 4 of 1995 in O.A. No. 49 of 
1989. 
P.P. Malhotra, Ms. Smitha Inna, Y.P. Mahajan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, 
Arvind K. Sharma, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, for the Appellants. 
Arun Jaitely, P.P. Rao, Jasmect Singh, Mahainder Singh Raj K. 
Gupta, H.V.P. Sharma, Rajesh and Sanjay Parikh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the various orders passed 
H by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in different mat-
114 
y 
1
U.0.1. v. B. PRASAD, B.S.O. 
115 
ters. The main order was passed on 17.11.1995 in RA No. 4/95 in OA No. A 
49/89. 
The Government of India have been issuing orders from time to time 
for payment of allowances and facilities for civilian employees of the 
Central Government servants working in the States and Union Territories 
of the North-eastern region .. It is not in dispute that Special Duty Al-
B 
lowance was ordered by the Government @ 25% of the basic pay subject 
to a ceiling of Rs. 400 per month on posting on any station in the 
North-eastern region. Subsequently, the Government have been issuing 
orders from time to time. In the proceedings dated April 11:1995, the 
Government modified the payment of the Special Duty Allowance and C 
Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance as under : 
"The Defence Civilian employees, serving in the newly defined 
modified Field Areas, will continue to be entitled to the Special 
Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance and other allowances D 
as admissible to Defence Civilians, as hithertofore, under existing 
instructions issued by this Ministry from time to time. However, in 
respect of Defence Civilian employees in the newly defined Field 
Areas, Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance and 
other allowances not concurrently admissible along with Field 
Service Concessions." 
E 
It is contended by Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel appear-
ing for the Union of India, that the view taken by the Tribunal that they 
are entitled to both, is not correct and that they would be entitled to either 
of the allowances. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for F 
some of th~ respondents has contended that those civilian employees 
, working in the defence service at various st~tions in the North-eastern 
region were given Special Duty Allowance with a view to attract the 
competent persons and the persons having been deployed, are entitled to 
the same and the amended concessions would be applicable to those 
employees who are transferred after April 17, 1975. All those who were G 
serving earlier would be entitled to both. Shri Arun Jaitely, learned senior 
counsel appearing for some of the respondents has drawn our attention to 
the distinction between Field area and Modified Field area and submitted 
that in cases where civilian employees are supporting the field defence 
persons deployed for the border operational requirements facing the im- H 
ll6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A mense hostilities, they will be denied the payment of both allowances while 
the personnel working in the Modified Field Area, in other words, in 
barracks, will be entitled to double benefit of both the allowance. This 
creates hostile discrimination and unjust results. 
B 
Having regard lo the respective contentions, we are of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.