Case: DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF Vs. JANARDAN SINGH

2. Brief facts of the caseGovernment of India, Ministry of Finance vide its Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 decided to extend certain benefits to the officers in service in North Eastern Region of the country. One of the benefits which was decided to be extended to those employees/officers was to grant Special (Duty) Allowance on posting to any station in the North Eastern Region. The said benefits were subsequently extended to the employees of CRPF. The Respondents 2,3 and 4 were appointed as pharmacists in CRPF on 08.09.1989, 28.06.1988 and 11.06.1981 respectively and they were posted in different places in India including North Eastern Region. A letter dated 31.03.1987 was issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, according to which the benefit of O.M. dated 28.12.1983 read with O.M. dated 29.10.1986 is to be extended to BSF, CRPF & CISF personnel posted and serving in North Eastern Region having their Headquarters in that region.The Respondents submitted an application regarding sanction of Special (Duty) Allowance. The Respondent case was that he is posted in North Eastern Region and is entitled to Special (Duty) Allowance he being posted in unit Jorhat in Assam. The representation was replied by letter dated 15.04.2005 of office of the commandant stating that since Headquarter of Personnel is in Shivpuri/Gwalior, hence, person is not entitled for Special (Duty) Allowance. Letter fromof Police dated 11.07.2005 was sent to the Commandant, CRPF, informing that althoughby his letter dated 12.03.1992 has sent proposal to Ministry of Home Affairs that Special (Duty) Allowance should be given to all the battalions whose Headquarters are not in the North East but the battalions are deployed in the North East. It was further stated that the consent of Ministry of Home Affairs has not yet been received. On 3rd August 2005, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order on thet of IndiaMinistry of HomeBlock, New DelhiDated, the 3rd August,: ALLOWANCE AND FACILITIES FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVING IN THE STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES OF NORTH EASTERN REGION, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND LAKSHADWEEP.The Order clarified that allowance to be admissible to the personnel who were actually working in the North East Region. The Respondents filed Original Application No. 778 of 2006 before Central Administrative Tribunal claiming grant of Special (Duty) Allowance as per the Order dated 14.12.1983. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and Order dated 05.11.2007 directed for sanction of Special (Duty) Allowance to the applicants for the period they have actually worked in the North Eastern Region. Against the Order of Tribunal, Appellant filed a Writ Petition in Allahabad High Court which was dismissed on 14.02.2008 aggrieved against which Order the present appeal has been filed.

Court's reasoning:
11. A perusal of the aforesaid clearly indicates that genesis of grant of Special (Duty) Allowance was posting of person in North Eastern Region. The said benefits were extended to attract and retain the services of the competent officers serving in North Eastern Region.There is no dispute that the said benefit was extended to CRPF personnel also. The benefit as extended by Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 was revised from time to time and by 29.08.1986 revised orders were issued with effect from 01.10.1986, benefit of which orders was claimed in the claim petition filed by the Respondents before the Tribunal.A perusal of the letter dated 15.04.2005indicates that only reason for denying the Special (Duty) Allowance to the Respondents was that their Headquarters were in Shivpuri/Gwalior i.e. out of North Eastern Region although there was no denial that their posting was in North Eastern Region.The purpose and object of granting the benefit as noticed above was to reward the persons who are posted in the North Eastern Region. The Tribunal has directed for granting the benefit to the Respondents for the period they have actually worked in the North Eastern Region. When the basis for granting Special (Duty) Allowance was posting in North Eastern Region, we fail to see that how the Respondents who were posted in the North Eastern Region would have been denied the Special (Duty) Allowance on the ground that their Headquarters are in Shivpuri/Gwalior. The benefit is attached to their posting in the North Eastern Region and denial on the ground that their Headquarters are in Shivpuri/Gwalior has no nexus with their claim. The Tribunal has allowed that claim which has been affirmed by the High Court.Much emphasis has been given by the counsel for the Appellant that Order dated 03.08.2005 has prospective application only and the benefit could have given only with effect from 03.08.2005 by which period some of the Respondents were posted out of North Eastern Region.A perusal of the Order dated 03.08.2005 does not indicate that the said benefit was intended only after 03.08.2005. Paragraph 2 of the order uses the words "it is clarified that allowance would be admissible to the personnel who are actually working in the North East Region". The Order issued by the Government was clarificatory in nature.We have already noticed that by Government Order dated 31.03.1987 Special (Duty) Allowance was extended to CRPF personnel posted and serving in North East Region who had their Headquarters also in that region. Obvious inference was that those personnel posted and serving in North East Region whose Headquarters were not in that region were not entitled to the benefit. Whether such classification for extending the benefit to one class of personnel who were both posted and serving there and had their Headquarter there and those personnel who were posted and serving there and having their Headquarter outside the North East Region is valid or not and passes the test of equality before law Under Article 14 is the question also needs to be considered.When we apply the ratio as laid down above we find that there is no intelligible differentia between two classes of employees posted and serving in North East Region as noted above. The policy of law as is clear from the original Government Order dated 14.12.1983, it is clear that Government came with the scheme of Special (Duty) Allowance with the object and purpose of encouraging, attracting and retaining the services of the officers in the North Eastern Region. To differentiate the employees in two categories i.e. (i) whose Headquarters are within North Eastern Region and (ii) whose Headquarters are outside the North Eastern Region, clearly indicate that classification is not founded on any intelligible differentia.Further the differentia has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. When the purpose is to encourage and retain the personnel in North Eastern Region to deny the benefit of Special (Duty) Allowance to those who although posted and serving in North Eastern Region have their Headquarter outside the North East Region does not have any rational nexus with object sought to be achieved.The classification as made in the Government Order dated 31.03.1987 does not pass the twin test as noted above. The Government having itself realised the error has corrected the same by Government Order dated 03.08.2005 permitted the Special (Duty) Allowance to all who are posted and serving in North East Region irrespective of the facts as whether their Headquarters are within the North Eastern Region or outside the North Eastern Region.When the earlier classification as envisaged by Government Order dated 31.03.1987 itself not been valid to deny the benefit to those who were entitled to the Special (Duty) Allowance on the ground that Government came with the clarification only on 03.08.2005 shall neither be equitable nor shall stand the test of equality before the law.When the denial as noted above did not pass the twin test of valid classification and was unconstitutional to deny the said benefit on the premise that Government corrected its error only on 03.08.2005, hence, with effect from 03.08.2005 only the benefit should be given does not appeal to reason.