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

                                                                                         y

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.

           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.
                                                                                             1
F
          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.
G
           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
                         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
                                                                                       y
    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.

            Having regard lo the respective contentions, we are of the view that
B the Government having been extending the benefit of payment of Special
    Duty Allowance to all the defence employees working in the North-eastern
    region as per the orders issued by the Government from time to time as
    on April 17, 1995, they are entitled to both the Special Duty Allowance as !
    well as Field Area Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance.
C   The same came to be modified w.e.f. that date. Therefore, irrespective of
    the fact whether or not they have been deployed earlier to that date, all
    are entitled to both the allowances only upto that date, Thereafter, all the
    personnel whether transferred earlier to that or transferred from on or
    after that date, shall be entitled to payment of only one set of Special Duty
    Allowance in terms of the above modified order.
D
           As regards the payment of Special Duty Allowance to the defence
    civilian personnel deployed at the border area for support of operational
    requirement, they face the imminent hostilities supporting the army per- '
    sonnel deployed there. Necessarily, they alone require the double payment
E   as ordered by the Government but they cannot be deprived of the same
    since they arc facing imminent hostilities in hilly areas risking their lives as
    envisaged in the proceedings of the Army dated January 13, 1994. But the
    Modified Field Area, in other words, in the defence terminology, "barracks"
    in that area is a lesser risking area; hence they shall not be entitled to
    double payment. Under these circumstances, Mr. P.P. Malhotra is r.ight in
F   saying that the wording of the order requires modification. The Govern-
    ment is directed to modify the order and issue the corrigendum according-
    ly.

            The appeals are disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that the
G Union of India is not entitled to recover any payments made of the period
     prior to April 17, 1995. No costs.

     R.P.                                                    Appeals disposed of.