Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
N.S.Negi vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... on 27 July, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (CIRCUIT BENCH AT JAMMU) O.A.NO. 061/00019/2015 Date of order:- July 27 , 2016. Coram: Honble Mr. Justice L.N.Mittal, Member (J) Honble Mr. Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A). 1. N.S.Negi, Joint A.O., s/o Sh. B.S.Negi, r/o vill. Daula, P.O. Kandara, Distt. Rudra Prayag, Uttrakhand. 2. Sanjeev Chandel, SAO, s/o late Sh. Inder Singh Chandel, r/o VPO Panoh, Distt. Bilaspur. 3. K.C.Bhardwaj, DFO(G) s/o Sh. Hidru Ram, r/o Village Kumharda, P.O. Pehda, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP 4. S.C.Pant, DFO(G), s/o late Sh. R.D.Pant, r/o VPO Pant Kotali, Ranaikhet, Distt. Almora, Uttrakhand. 5. P.P.Singh (FPO), s/o late Sh. Lal Singh, r/o 7, Link Road, Karan Bagh, Jammu 6. Jeevan Singh, AFO(M) s/o Sh. Sarwan Singh, r/o VPO Jandi, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua. 7. Dhrub Singh, AFO(M) s/o late Sh. Hans Raj Singh, r/o vill Barla, P.O. Surara, Distt. Samba. 8. Kirat Ram, AFO(m) s/o Lt. Sh. Inderjeet, r/o VPO Nirmand, Tehsil Nirrmand, Distt. Kullu(HP). 9. Rajesh Sharma, SFA(M) s/o Lt. Sh. Desh Raj Sharma, r/o VPO 42 H, Tehsil Srikaranpur, Distt. Srinagar(Raj). 10. Parshotam Lal, SFA (M) s/o Sh. Mohan Lal, r/o vill. Dollian, P.O. Bari Brahmana, Distt. Samba. 11. Jodh Raj, SFA(M), s/o Sh. Babu Ram, r/o VPO Kot Punnu, Tehsil Hiranagar, Distt. Kathua. 12. Swarn Singh, SFA(v) s/o Sh. Tribat Singh, r/o vill. Gurhajallan, P.O. Ghagwal, Distt. Samba. 13. Satpal Sharma,a SFA(v), S/O LT. Sh. Ram Krishan, r/o VPO Kootah, Distt. Kathua. 14. Sunil Slathia (Dvr.GDI) s/o lt. Sh. Chagu Singh, r/o 69, Ward No.13, Hatli More, Kathua. 15. Manmohan Singh, (Dvr.GDI), s/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh, r/o vill. Upper Gadigarh, P.O. Miran Sahib, Distt. Jammu. 16. Suram Chand (Dvr.GDI), s/o Sh. Desh Raj, r/o vill. Swankha, Distt. Samba. 17. Rishi Pal Singh (Dvr.GDI) s/o Sh. Puran Chand, r/o vill. Roop Nagar, P.O. Gangyal, Distt. Jammu. 18. Kaleshwar Prasad, FA(G), s/o Sh. Srinath, r/o vill. Balapur, P.O. Jagishpur, Distt. Allahabad (UP). 19. Mohan Singh (Peon), s/o Sh. Daler Singh, r/o Bandral, P.O. Ramgarh, Distt. Samba. 20. M.K.Bhat, Peon s/o Sh. B.L.Bhat, r/o Qtr.No.18, Line 22, Block No.131, Jagti Township, Jammu. 21. Premnath, Safaiwala, s/o Laxman Das, r/o Trindi, Jambora, PO Ramgarh, Distt. Jammu. 22. Satpal s/o Bua Ditta, r/o Chhowuni Avtal, PO Ramgarh, Distt. Jammu. Applicants. ( By Advocate :- Mr. Raman Sharma ) Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Union Home Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Force Headquarters, East Block-V, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Advocate : Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta ). O R D E R Honble Mr. Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A):
The present Original Application has been filed by twenty two persons holding different posts ranging from joint AO, SAO, DFO(G), FPO, AFO(M), driver, Peon, Safaiwala etc. who are all members of non-combatised personnel of Sashastra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred to SSB). These persons are posted in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
2. The claim of the applicants in the present OA is that these personnel should be given the benefit of field area allowance or counter insurgency operation allowance as admissible to combatised personnel placed in the same location.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that he is seeking parity of this allowance with the combatised personnel on the ground that the non-combatised personnel are facing the same risk and hardship as the combatised personnel face in the same location. He further argued that the basis of grant of this allowance was posting in a particular area and not the duties that are carried out by the personnels. He has, however, not challenged the circulars dated 16.4.2008 (Annexure A-1), letter dated 4.7.2014 (Annexure A-3) and Communication dated 18.7.2014 (Annexure A-4).
4. The respondents have in their written statement contended that grant of risk/hardship based allowances to CAPFs personnel is regulated in terms of MHA OM No.II-27012/56/2008-PF.I dated 16.4.2009(Annexure-A). As per said OM, risk/hardship based allowances is admissible to combatised CAPF personnel upto the rank of Commandant. The terms & conditions governing Army allowances shall also apply in granting risk/hardship based allowances. SSB combatised personnel deployed in Srinagar (J&K) for CI(Ops) duty are drawing risk/hardship based allowances in terms of MHA OM dated 16.4.2009(Annexure A) & FHQ memo dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure B). The office of the respondent no.3 had received applications from applicant Shri N.S.Negi, Joint Area Organiser, SSB and some other non-combatised staff posted at SHQ, Srinagar for grant of risk/hardship based allowance at par with SSB combatised personnel deployed in Srinagar (J&K). Though the non combatised personnel are not entitled to risk/hardship based allowance as per MHA OM dated 16.4.2009(Annexure A), a proposal was sent to MHA for extending risk/hardship based allowance to SSB non-combatised officers/officials vide SSB SFS No.1/Org/SSB/Pers-V-Org/2013/11760 dated 6.12.2013(Annexure CX). MHA has returned the proposal with the remarks that similar proposals have been examined in MHA earlier & not agreed to. Accordingly, reply sent to SHQ Srinagar vide Fax msg. No.1/Org/SSB/Risk/Hardship/Allow/ 2013(78)-3872 dated 3.4.2014(Annexure D).
Other CAPFs i.e. CRPF, BSF & ITBP have also been consulted in the matter. As per response received from other CAPFs, they have neither taken up any such proposal to MHA nor granting risk/hardship based allowance to non-combatised personnel. However, the issue regarding grant of risk/hardship to non-combatised personnel has now been referred to 7th CPC for consideration vide SSB memo No.1/80/SSB/ Pers-V/7th CPC/2014/11784 dated 5.11.2014 (Annexure E).
As there is no provision for granting such allowances to the non-combatised personnel of CAPFs and these applicants belong to non-combatised stream of SSB, therefore, the same cannot be extended to them. Thus, the present OA is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the sides and have carefully considered the matter.
6. The fact remains that through a conscious decision, the Government of India through the circulars aforementioned namely Annexures A-1, A-3 & A-4 have decided to grant risk/CI allowance to combatised personnel of the para-military forces. This allowance is granted to combatised personnels across the forces and is applicable to all central para-military forces. This allowance is being given to combatised personnel keeping in mind the risk and the hardship that they face in discharge of their duties.
7. In the perception of Government, the risk carried by the combatised personnel during the course of their duties, is higher than the non-combatised personnel and, therefore, the justification for this allowance. A reading of the Scheme ( Annexure A-1) as well as the note sent by DG, SSB, to Ministry of Home Affairs as also the reply of MHA ( Annexures C & D ) respectively clearly indicate that this particular allowance at present is meant only for combatised personnel of Central Para Military Forces posted in difficult locations to compensate for the risk/hardship being faced by them. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the basis of this allowance is a particular location and not the duties being carried out by the personnel. We also find it difficult to accept the contention of applicants that Peons, Safaiwalas, Drivers etc. constituting majority of applicants run identical risk and hardship while discharging their duties as do the combatised personnel. We also note further in this OA that the applicants have not challenged the circulars Annexures A-1, A-3 & A-4 which grant these allowances to combatised personnels. There is no parity between non-combatised personnel and combatised personnel for this purpose on account of different nature of their duties. This is a reasonable classification having nexus to the object to be achieved. The applicants being non-combatised personnel are not entitled to the allowance in question.
8. In the light of discussion in the preceding paragraphs, we find that the arguments/contentions of the applicants are devoid of merit and resultantly, the same deserve to be rejected.
9. The OA, therefore, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL) MEMBER (J) (UDAY KUMAR VARMA) MEMBER (A).
Dated:- 27.7.2016.
Kks 2 6 ( O.A.NO. 061/00019/2015 ) (N.S.Negi & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.) ( O.A.No.061/00019/2015 ) 1 ( N.S.Negi & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. )