UNION. OF INDIA AND ORS.versusEXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION GROUP C

                                                                                      ,,

A                         UNION. OF INDIA AND ORS.
                                          v.
             EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION GROUP 'C'

                               FEBRUARY,.23, 1995

B                [S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.)

          Service Law-Allowances-Special Duty Allowance for service in
    North-Eastern Region-Entitlement of officers belongi.'ng to said region-Held:
    Not entitled to.
c
         · An office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry
    of Finance provided for Special Duty Allowance for Central Government
    employees who had all India transfer liability. The allowance was provided
    on the recommendation of a Committee in order to attract and retain the
    services of competent officers in the North-Eastern Region.
D
           An Association of Group "C" Inspectors of Customs and Central
    Excise, Shillong alleging that they had all 'India transfer liability under the
    Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group (C) Posts Recruit-
    ment Rules, 1979 claimed the Special Duty Allowance. The Central Ad~
E   ministrative Tribunal ordered payment of the allowance. The Union of
    India challenged the order contending that the respondents were not
    entitled to the allowance as they belonged to the North-Eastern Region
    itself and were recruited and posted to the said region.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : The words "attractinr and retaining in service" in the
    opening part of the office memorandun were very significant and suggested
    only competent officers belonging to a region other than the North-Eastern
    Region. The intention and spirit behind the office memorandum was to
G   provide an incentive and attraction to competent officers belonging to
    regions other than the North-Estern Region to go and serve in the Nortb-
    Eastem Region which was considered a bard zone. (280-B-C]

           Chief General Manager (Telecom) v. S. Rajender C.H. Bhattacharjee
    and Ors., JT (1995) 1 SC 440 and Union of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar and
H   Ors., JT (1994) 6 SC 443, relied on.
                                         276
              U.0.Lv. EXECIJTIVEOFF1CERSASSN.[FAIZANUDDIN,J.)              277

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3034 of A
    1995.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 28.5.93 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 172 of 1991.

         N.N. Goswamy, S.D. Sharma, V.K. Yerma and D.S. Mehra for the              B
    Appellants.

            Kfishnamurthi Swami for the Respondents.

(           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                   c
            FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. Delay condoned.

            2. Leave granted. The counsel for parties are heard.

           3. This appeal has been directed' by the appellants aginst the judg-
    ment dated May 28, 1993 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, D
    Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in O.A. No. 172 of
    1972. By the said judgment the Tribunal held that the respondents are
    entitled to Special Duty Allowance in terms of Office memorandum dated
    December 14, 1983 with effect from the date specifically indicated in the
    said Office Memorandum and directed the appellants herein to pay and E
    clear the Special Duty Allowance to the respondents herein within 90 days
    from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment in respect of the arrears
    d~e and to release the current Special duty Allowance with effect from the
    month of June, 1993.

          4. The respondent No. 1 is an Association of Group (C) Inspectors
                                                                                   F
    of Customs and Central Excise under the Collectorate of Customs and
    Central Excise, ShiUong and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are its President and
    General Secretary respectively. The respondents approached the Tribunal
~   claiming Special Duty Allowance on the strength of Office Memorandum
    No. 20014/2/83-E.IV dated December 14, 1983 and the Office Memoran-            G
    dum No. 20014/16/86.IV/E.Il(B) dated December 1, 1988 issued by the
    Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The respondent-Assocation
    claimed that its members have all India transfer liability under the Central
    Excise and Land Cus_toms Department Goup ( C) Posts Recruitment Rules,
    1979 which were applicable to its members and in pursuance of which three      H
    278                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1995) 2 S.C.R.
                                                                                      '
A of its members had been transferred and one Smt. Lisa L. Rynjan of
  Shillong had been posted at Goa under the said recruitment Rules and,
  therefore, they are eligible and entitled to claim Special Duty Allowance.
  The appellants herein opposed and contested the aforesaid claim of the
  respondents before the Tribunal. The appellants took the defence by
B stating that the Office Memorandum No. 20014/3/83.E/IV dated April 20,
  1987 had clarified that the Special Duty Allowance is payable only to those
  officers, incumbents of Group (C) of posts who are having all India transfer
  liability defined in the said Office Memorandum keeping in view the
  original Office Memorandum dated March 14, 1983 and that the conditions
  stipulated in the Recruitment Rules, 1979 referred to above cannot be
C taken as basis for saddling the respondents or its members with all India
  transfer liability and consequent payment of Special Duty Allowance to
  them. The appellants also took the plea that all India transfer liability of
  the members of any service/cadre or incumbent of any posts/Group of posts
  is to be determined by applying the tests of recruitment to the ser-
D vice/cadre/post made on all India basis and that mere clauses in the
  Recruitment Rules/Appointment Order stipulating all India transfer
  liability does not make him/them eligible for grant of Special Duty Al-
  lowance in terms of Ofice Memorandum dated December 14, 1983.

E          5. After considering the rival contentions the Tribunal observed that
    the contents of Office Memorandum dated April 12, 1984 as well as the
    letter No. 7/47/48.EA dated September 28, 1984 have been fully discussed
    by the Full Bench, Calcutta and held that the real test/criteria for deter-
    mination is whether all India transfer liability exists and opined that without
F   recalling the Office Memorandum issued in 1983 the concerned depart-
    ments had no reason to deny the benefit of memorandum available to
    certain classes of employees and to withdraw its application to certain
    other classes. Relying on the said Bench decision of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta, the Tribunal allowed the application of the
    respondents by the impugned judgment and granted the relief as staed
G   above against which this appeal has been preferred.

           6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has
    failed to appreciate the true meaning, intention and spirit behind the term
    all India transfer liability which occurred in the Finance Ministry Office,
H   Memorandum referred to above and has thus seriously er-£ed in holding
        U.O.lv. EXECUTIVEOFFICERSASSN.[FAIZANUDDIN,J.]               279

that the members of the respondent-Association are entitled to the Sepcial A
Duty Allowance. He further submitted that the package of incentives
contained in the Ministry's Office Memorandum dated December 14, 1983
(as amended) as based on the recommendations of the committee to review
the facilities and allowance admissible to Central Government Employees
in the North-Eastern Region and it was with a view to attract and r.etain B
competent officers service in the States and Union Territories in the
Noth-Eastern Region that the Government of India on the recommenda-
tions of the committee made the provision for Special Duty Allowance to
be paid to such officers who come on posting and deputation to North-
Eastern Region from other Regions. It was, therefore, submitted that since C
the members of the respondent-Association belonged to the North-Eastern
Region itself who were recruited and posted in the same Region, they were
not ·entitled for Special Duty Allowance.

      7. The main source for claiming the Special Duty Allowance is the
Office Memorandum dated December 14, 1983 the very first paragraph of D
which reads as under :-

        ''The need for attracting and retaining the services of competent
        officers for service in the North-Eastern Region comprising the
        States of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura and        E
        the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram have
        been engaging the attention of the Government for some time. The
        Government had appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship
        of Secretary Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
        to review the existing allowances and facilities admissible to the
        various categories of Civilian Central Government employees serv-
                                                                             F
        ing in this region and to suggest suitable improvements. The
        recommendations of the Committee have been carefully con-
        sidered by the Government and the President is now pleased to
        decide a5 follows."
                                                                             G


     8. A careful perusal of the opening part of the Office Memorandum
reproduced above would show that the Government had appointed a
Committee under the Chairmanship of the" Secretary Department of Per-        H
    280                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A sonnel and Administrative Reforms to review the existing allowances and
    facilities admissible to the various categories of Civilian Central Govern-
    ment Employees serving in the North-Eastern Region so that compete;1t
    officers may be attracted and retained in the North-Eastern Region States.
    The use of words attracting ami retaining in senice are very much sig-
B nificant which only suggest that it means the competent officers belonging
    to the Region other than the North-Eastern Region. The question of
    attracting and retaining the services of competent officers who belong to
    North-Eastern Region itself would not arise. The intention of the Govern-
    ment and spirit behind the Office Memorandum is to provide an incentive
C and attraction to the competent officers belonging to the Region other than
    the North-Eastern region to come and serve in the North-Eastern Region.
    It can hardly be disputed that the geographical, climatic, living and food
    conditions of people living in North-Eastern Region and the States com-
    prising therein are different from other Regions of the country. The
D North-Eastern Region is considered to be hard zone for various reasons
    and it appears that it is for these reasons that the Government provided
    certain extra allowance, benefits and other facilities to attract competent
    officers in the North-Eastern Region at least for two to three years of
    tenure posting. The Ministry's Office Memorandum in question came up
    for consideration before this Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) v.
E S. Rajender C.H. Bhattacharjee & Ors., JT (19'J5) 1SC440 which was decided
    by us by judgment dated January 18, 1995 in which this Court took the view
    that the said Office Memorandas are meant for attracting and retaining the
    services of competent officers in the North-Eastern Region, from other
    parts of the country and not the persons belonging to that region where
F they were appointed and posted; This was also the view e:iquessed by this
     Court in yet another case reported in J.T. (1994) 6 443 - Union of lndiil v.
    S. Vijaya Kumar & Ors., In Vijaya Kumar (Supra) the point for considera-
     tion-was exactly identical, with regard to the entitlement to Special Duty
    Allowance to those employees/officers who are residents of North-Eastern
G Region itself. After considering the memorandum dated December 14,
     1983 and other related Office Memorandums indicated above, it was held
     that the purpose of _the jillowance was to attract persons from outside the
     North-Eastern ~}tegi<fri;r (to work in the North-Eastern Region because of
     inaccessibility and- difficult tefrain. ·In the facts and circumstances stated
H --above the view taken b~t~p Txibunal cannot be upheld and deserves to be
             U.0.1. v. EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSN. [FAIZAN UDDIN, J.]       281

    set aside.                                                                 A
          9. For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed. The impugned
    order of the tribunal is set aside and the application filed by the respon-
    dents before the tribunal for grant of Special Duty Allowance to them is
    dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order
    as to costs.                                                                B

    A.G.                                                    Appeal allowed.




/