UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHRI RAM GOPAL AGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 15-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI RAM GOPAL AGARWAL AND ORS. 
JANUARY 15, 1998 
B 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949: Ration money-Sanctioned to 
C combatised staff but not to non-combatised ministerial and non-gazetted staff 
who had not opted for combatised staff-Cla11n for grant of ration money by 
non-gazetted non-combatised hospital staff-Allowed by Tribunal-On appeal, 
held, the Tribunal erred in equating both the classes under the principle of 
"Equal pay for equal work"-The terms and conditions of services of 
D combatised and non-conbatised staff are totally different-Neither a case of 
"equal pay for equal work" nor a case of discrimination or violation of the 
,A;. 
Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14 and 16. 
The respondents were non-gazetted non-comhatised hospital staff 
working with the Central Reserve Police Force. The services of the 
E respondents were governed by the Central Civil Services Rules, whereas the 
combatised personnel were governed by the Central Reserve Police Force 
Act, 1949. The non-gazetted personnel of Central Reserve Police Force 
including ministerial staff were sanctioned ration money when they were 
working in the operational areas. This concession was not admissible to the 
ministerial and non-gazetted staff who were not combatised. The Government 
F oflndia, vide letter dated 20th February, 1981 converted the civilian posts 
of non-gazetted ministerial staff into combatised staff. The civilian and 
hospital staff were given option to choose for combatised staff. The respondents 
did not exercise the option and remained in the civilian posts. As per the pay 
commission recommendations, the Govt. sanctioned the ration money only to 
G the non-gazetted combatised personnel and the personnel who have not opted 
for the combatised staff were not entitled to the same. However, by subsequent 
order dated 24th February 1989, ration allowance was restored to those who 
were working in the operational areas. The respondents who had not opted 
for combatised staff approached the Tribunal with the grievance that they 
were unfairly denied the benefit of grant of ration money which was available 
H to combatised non-gazetted personnel. The Tribunal while allowing their 
202 
U.0.1. v. R.G. AGARWAL 
203 
claim quashed the letter dated 24th February 1989 and directed the appellant A 
-"; 
to pay 50 per cent of the ration allowance to the non-gazetted non-combatised 
staff. Hence the present appeal. 
• 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is neither a case of "equal pay for equal work" nor a case B 
"'"' 
of discrimination or violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of 
·' 
India. The claim of the respondents is not sustainable and the Tribunal fell 
into an error by equating both classes under the principle of "equal pay for 
equal work". 
1.2. There is clear distinction in the terms and conditions of service, c 
the nature of work and even tenure of service inter se between combatised 
and non-combatised personnel. The combatised personnel retire at the age 
of 53 while the non-combatised personnel retire at the age of 55. The nature 
of work, so far as combatised personnel are concerned, are arduous in 
nature in the operational and sensitive areas. In fact even the non-combatised D 
" 
personnel while working in the operational areas and such sensitive places 
' 
are granted the ration allowances. 
1.3. Even the terms and conditions of service are totally different. The 
combatised personnel are governed by Central Reserve Police Force Act and 
Rules, which is an army rule more stringent in nature while non~l}mbatised E 
staff is governed by the civilian law, namely, Central Civil Services Rules 
made by the Government of India under Article 309 of the Constitution. The 
question of discrimination in the matter of allowances has to be listed 
differently even inter se between those falling under class of "equal pay for 
equal work". In cases where some of the personnel are performing overtiine 
F 
duties, night duties, duties in hazardous place viz. mountain, terrain at 
.I" 
heights or at sensitive border areas an additional allowance is made applicable 
for the nature of work they perform. 
1.4. When option is given it is with clear intention of there being plus 
and minus points in the two categories. That by itself differentiates inter se G 
between the two. Those not opting to enjo

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