Meghalaya High Court
Samir Chandra Kar vs The Union Of India on 15 September, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 365 of 2014
1. Mr. Samir Chandra Kar
Senior Accountant, 37 Assam Rifles
2. Mrs. Sanahabi Kar
Nursing Sister, 37 Assam Rifles
3. Mr. Himangshu Deb
Junior Teacher, 37 Assam Rifles
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The Union of India, represented by
The Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director (Police Finance Wing)
The Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi, Pin-110001.
3. The Director General Assam Rifles,
Mahanideshalaya
(The Directorate General Assam Rifles)
Meghalaya, Shillong, Pin-793011.
4. Lt. Colonel Mr. Rohit Negi
[Offg Colonel (Administration)]
Mahanideshalaya
(The Directorate General Assam Rifles)
Meghalaya, Shillong, Pin-793011.
... Respondents
WP(C) No. 84 of 2015
Damayanti Chaliha & Ors.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The Union of India, represented by
The Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director (Police Finance Wing)
The Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi, Pin-110001.
3. The Director General Assam Rifles,
Mahanideshalaya
(The Directorate General Assam Rifles)
Meghalaya, Shillong, Pin-793011.
... Respondents
WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 1 of 16
WP(C) No. 84 of 2015
WP(C) No. 120 of 2014
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH
Present
Mr. H.G. Boruah, Advocate : Counsel for Petitioners
Mr. N. Mozika, Advocate : Counsel for Respondents
Date of Hearing : 08.09.2017
Date of Judgment : 15th September, 2017
WP(C) No. 120 of 2014
Sanjay Lala & Ors.
... Petitioners
- Versus -
1. The Union of India, represented by
The Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director (Police Finance Wing)
The Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi, Pin-110001.
3. The Director General Assam Rifles,
Mahanideshalaya
(The Directorate General Assam Rifles)
Meghalaya, Shillong, Pin-793011.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. VAISH
Present
Mr. H.G. Boruah, Advocate : Counsel for Petitioners
Mr. R. Debnath, Advocate : Counsel for Respondents
Date of Hearing : 08.09.2017
Date of Judgment : 15th September, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, by way of these three writ petitions, seek directions to the respondents to grant higher rate of Compensatory allowance/Detachment allowance/Risk/(Hardship) allowance at par with their combatant counterparts like School Teacher/Staff Nurse/Sister/ANM/VFA/Ministerial Staff etc. WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 2 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014
2. All the petitioners are, admittedly, non-combatant employees of the respondent, Assam Rifles. All the three petitions involve identical question of law and, therefore, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgement.
3. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from WP(C) No. 365 of 2014. The petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 12th August, 2014 passed by the Director, Police Finance Wing and order dated 14th August, 2014 passed by the Lt. Colonel (Administration) whereby the representations of the petitioners were rejected.
4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as enumerated in the writ petition are that the petitioners are non-combatant employees of Assam Rifles.
5. It is stated by the petitioners that as per the Restructuring Peace Establishment of Assam Rifles, 2003, total number of Assam Rifles are 46 Battalion which include 31 old Battalions and 15 newly approved Battalions. The strength of one Battalion of Assam Rifles is 1250 personnel and the petitioners are within these 1250 personnel of Assam Rifles.
6. The petitioners have stated that they are within these 1250 personnel of the Battalion and they are physically present in the Battalion strength and therefore, they are the member, part and parcel of the force.
7. It is also stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide order No. 11011/1/84-FP-IV, dated 2nd February, 1989 sanctioned two Compensatory Allowances i.e Special Compensatory (remote locality) Allowance and Special (Duty) Allowance to all Assam WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 3 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 Rifles Personnel (both combatant and non-combatant) w.e.f. 7th November, 1988 for serving in difficult area/border area of North Eastern Region without any discrimination.
8. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, vide resolution dated 29th August, 2008 had accepted the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission relating to structure of emoluments, allowances, conditions of service and retirement benefits in respect of the civilian employees of Central Government in Groups A, B, C and D. The Central Armed Personnel are also governed by Central Civil Service (Revised pay) Rules, 2008, as well as the purpose of granting various Compensatory Allowance for serving in specific areas at par with the same terms and conditions of combatant and non-combatant personnel. It is stated that all Assam Rifles Personnel up to the rank of Commandant deployed in difficult areas/counter insurgency operational areas in Assam Rifles Battalion were allowed to draw the higher rate of Compensatory Allowance (Risk/Hardship Allowance) as applicable to defence service personnel in the same areas.
9. The petitioners further stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Police Finance Wing) vide Office Memorandum dated 16th April, 2009 sanctioned a new Compensatory Allowance to all Central Armed Police Forces Personnel by withdrawing one of the Special Compensatory Allowance from the earlier order dated 2nd February, 1989. The petitioners stated that surprisingly Special Compensatory Allowance was withdrawn from combatant personnel only after granting another set of higher Compensatory Allowance to them and non- combatant employees working in the same Assam Rifles Battalion were allowed to continue Special Compensatory Allowance being lower rate of Compensatory Allowance.
WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 4 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014
10. It is further stated that no amendment was carried out in the Office Memorandum dated 2nd February, 1989 while withdrawing Special Compensatory Allowance from the combatant personnel. The petitioners stated that it was deliberately done so that the petitioners could not claim higher rate of Compensatory Allowance.
11. The petitioners assailed the validity and legality of the order dated 16th, April, 2009 and claiming higher rate of Compensatory Allowance at par with the combatant counterparts, by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 155 of 2013. The said writ petition was contested by the respondents.
12. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8th April, 2014 directing the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi to dispose of the representations dated 18th April, 2012 and 31st May, 2012 filed by the petitioners keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. B. Prasad, B.S.O. & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 189 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order.
13. The petitioners have stated that the representations dated 22nd April, 2014 and 30th April, 2014 were rejected by the respondents vide impugned orders dated 12th August, 2014 and 14th August, 2014. Therefore, the petitioners have again approached this Court by way of the present petition.
14. The petition is opposed by the respondents and counter affidavit was also filed.
15. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioners are civil employees of Assam Rifles and their duties are restricted to their charter WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 5 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 of duties on working days/hours and are not employed in any kind of operational duties. The petitioners are immune from performing duties beyond offices/hospitals/school hours and on Sundays and Holidays. Thus, they cannot draw an equation with combatants merely by residing in the vicinity of Assam Rifles camps, as the combatants are subject to Assam Rifles Act, 1941/2006, who are under operational control of Army and are subject to harsh duties of maintaining peace and security in the area of deployment round the clock.
16. It is also stated that the petitioners though working in the sensitive areas in the unit, but they are not subject to the risks as the combatants are. The combatants are deployed inactive combat against the insurgent/militant and are prone to more risk of life, than these civil employees who are always confined within the Headquarters, which is well secured and guarded. Therefore, they are not entitled to risk/hardship allowance as per the Government of India order dated 16th April, 2009.
17. The respondents have also stated that the petitioners are governed by the CCS Rules and not by the Assam Rifles Act, 1941/2006. It is further stated that these employees are part and parcel of Assam Rifles but certain benefits which are extended to combatant personnel of Assam Rifles are not applicable to these civilian employees as these employees though working in the sensitive areas in the unit, are not subject to the risks as the combatants are.
18. The respondent have further stated that the combatants are deployed in active combat against the insurgent/militants and are prone to more risks of life, than the civil employees who are always confined within the Headquarters location, which is well secured and guarded, thus, enhancing their personal security. The President is pleased to WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 6 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 convey the approval for introduction of the risk/hardship allowance to combatised CPMF‟s personnel up to the rank of Commandant vide letter dated 16th April, 2009 and not to the civilian employees because they are always located in well protected garrison and Headquarters. It is also stated that the petitioners are civil employees of the Assam Rifles and as such are enjoying the privileges equal to other Central Government employees.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents vide the impugned orders rejected the representations without considering the observations made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in B. Prasad‟s case (supra).
20. The counsel for the petitioners also contended that rejection of the representations of the petitioners is contrary to the directions issued by this Court and the impugned orders were passed without applying the mind and thus, the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, whimsical, mala fide, injudicious, capricious and contrary to the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2014 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 155 of 2013.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners also urged that all the Assam Rifles employees both combatant and non-combatant while posted/serving in Battalions located in the State of Meghalaya, Mizoram and some part of Assam has been sanctioned same set of Compensatory Allowance considering the fact that these areas had not been notified as counter insurgency operation area or disturbed area. However, surprisingly when both the category of personnel when posted in the State of Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Tirap and Changlang (Arunachal Pradesh), combatant counterparts of the petitioners like School Teacher/Nursing Staff/Ministerial Staff/VFA/Female Attendant/Aya etc. WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 7 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 (who opted combatisation offer) are allowed to draw higher rate of Compensatory Allowance but the petitioners are granted lower rate of Compensatory Allowance like Special Compensatory Allowance which is highly discriminatory.
22. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are within the authorised strength of 1250 personnel of Assam Rifles Standard Battalion and deployed permanently in disturbed area/difficult area/border area/counter insurgency operational area in Nagaland, Manipur, Tirap and Changlang (Arunachal Pradesh) and working hand in glove with their combatant counterparts like School Teachers/Nursing Staff/Ministerial Staff etc., who opted combatisation offer, working in the same School/Hospital/Office etc. without exception and facing similar hardship.
23. While placing reliance on the judgment rendered in B. Prasad‟s case (Supra), the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed that civilian employees of Defence service deployed in counter insurgency operational areas/difficult areas to support the operation requirement of Defence Forces is entitled for any one of the Compensatory Allowance like Special Compensatory Allowance or SCCIA which is more beneficial to them. In the same analogy the petitioners are also working in the counter insurgency operational areas of Assam Rifles unit under operational control of Army, entitled to any one package of Compensatory Allowance which is more beneficial to them as made applicable to the petitioners combatant counterparts like School Teachers/Nurses/Female Attendants etc. working in the same Assam Rifles units.
24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the risk/hardship WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 8 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 allowance as per the Government O.M. dated 16th April, 2009 and the order of the Government has to be obeyed by the Government servants as is being done by other civilian Government servants.
25. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the payment of Compensatory Allowances such Duty Allowance etc. is not a component of pay and allowances of the employees and the withdrawal thereof by the Government on reasonable grounds cannot be resisted by the employees.
26. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that all the posts of the Force has been combatised vide MHA order dated 19th September, 1989 and 27th November, 2008 but the petitioners have not exercised the option, but they chose to remain in the non-combatised stream and thus, they now cannot claim the same benefits as is being given to the combatant force.
27. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length. I have also carefully gone through the material placed on record.
28. The fact remains that through a conscious decision, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide the Office Memorandum dated 16th April, 2009 have decided to grant risk/hardship allowance to combatised Central Para Military Forces (CPMF) personnel up to the rank of Commandant. This allowance was granted to combatised personnel across the forces and is applicable to all CPMF. This allowance is being given to combatised personnel keeping in mind the risk and the hardship that they face in discharge of their duties.
29. As directed by this Court vide order dated 8th April, 2014 passed in WP(C) No. 155 of 2013, the respondents have considered the representations of the petitioners and passed the impugned speaking WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 9 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 order. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 14th August, 2014 are as under:-
"3. THEREFORE, the additional responsibilities is to carry out duty pertaining to military operations whenever called upon to do so round the clock are provided under the Act and Rules. The Assam Rifles Act is made applicable to the combatants and they are governed by the rigors of the Act. The nature of work is distinctly not identical for combatant and civilian employees in the Force. It is further stated that the combatants are enrolled under Sec. 4 of the Act and their ranks are determined as per Sec. 5. As mentioned, the combatants are enrolled under the Act by following the procedure prescribed in Rule 12 of the Rules. They undergo rigorous training both mentally and physically for the operational work under the Commandant. The combatants are covered under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 framed there under, whereas the civilian are covered by the CCS (CCA) Rules. The provision of the Assam Rifles Act is made applicable to the combatants only as per Constitution of India.
4. NOW THEREFORE, the risk/hardship allowance was approved by the President for combatised CPMF's personnel upto the rank of Commandant and not to the civilian employees of the Assam Rifles vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Finance Wing) letter No. II.27012/56/2008-PF.I dated 16th April 2009. Therefore, the ground of discrimination is not sustainable. The petitioners are civilian employees. They are not expected to be available for duty for 24 hours as is possible in case of combatants. Terms and service conditions of petitioners is being limited as civilian staff is doing work in the office/hospital/school and in the office/hospital/school time and same cannot be compared with service of the combatants staff. The contention of the petitioners is incorrect though the civil employee does stay with the combatants, however they are not prone to the risk as the combatants are. They do not move out of the post for any operational duties and remain within the HQs, which is well fortified and guarded. So, the petitioners are more secured and comfortable with reference to the combatants, as per his charter of duties but combatants are bound to perform their duty 24 hours due to exigency of service.
5. The petitioners have not stated that while serving in those areas the combatants are the only persons who move out of the posts/headquarters to fight the insurgents, whereas these petitioners do not move with the combatant counterpart to fight the insurgents. The civilians who are posted in the Headquarters are administratively in better conditions. Their living conditions and all such comforts are much higher to the standards of the normal combatants of their equivalent ranks and profile, especially those combatants who stay and operate from the Company Operating Bases, which are totally isolated from the Headquarters, wherein these civilians are not posted. Therefore, such statement that they are facing WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 10 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 similar risk/hardship equivalent to a combatant is totally false, baseless and incorrect. It is also brought out that, while they are working in the Battalion Headquarters they are given inherent protection by the armed guards guarding the Headquarters and other elements. It is also to mention that the risk/hardship allowances as the name suggests is applicable only to combatants because these combatants go out of their posts with entire weaponry, ammunitions to fight against the militants, guard the borders at all times in all weather conditions and in all kinds of terrain and therefore are more susceptible to risk of being wounded/killed in a gunfight or due to hostile terrain conditions. Therefore, the statement made by the petitioners is false and there is no arbitrary, unfair, and discriminatory treatment. From above it is clear that the job responsibilities are totally different to each other and the petitioners are not at par with the combatant employees. The risk/hardship allowances are primarily granted to the combatants keeping their high level of risk in mind while operating against the militants.
6. ........
7. ........
8. ........
9. It is submitted that on implementation of 6th CPC, the pay of the entire staff (combatants and civilian staff) was revised. Grade pay was introduced for the first time. In the combatant staff, each rank has a specific grade pay. The same rank cannot have two different grade pay. With the introduction of Grade Pay an anomaly has arisen between the corresponding ranks fixed by the Government to be granted to civilian staff on combatisation vide letter No. 14012/140/AII/06/AR-PF.IV dated 27 Nov 2008 and the existing grade pay. It is intimated that civilian staff working in Assam Rifles who are willing and found fit for combatisation and they have already been combatised vide HQ DGAR letter No. A.Pers/II- 7/Combatisation/2011/1167 dated 18 Nov 2011 and they are getting Risk/Hard allowance as per their entitlement.
10. NOW THEREFORE, the President is pleased to convey the approval for introduction of the following risk/hardship allowance to combatised CPMF's personnel upto the rank of Commandant vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Finance Wing) letter No. II.27012/56/2008-PF.I dated 16th April 2009. So that the entitlement to risk/hardship allowance is concerned, the petitioners are not entitled to risk/hardship allowance as per Government of India OM dated 16 Apr 2009. It is also to mention here that the work profile of civilian employees is not as risky as the combatant; therefore, the civilians have not been granted risk/hardship allowances and they are granted SDA/SCA for their posting in the North Eastern Region. Hence, the representations dated 18 Apr 2012, 31 May 2012 and 30 Apr 2014 submitted by the petitioners for grant of risk/hardship allowances has been examined by Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Law & Justice vide their letter No II-27012/CF No. 103441/16/2011-PF-I dated 12 WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 11 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 Aug 2014, the claim of the petitioners are devoid of merit and substance and hence, same may be rejected."
30. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the order impugned in the present petition, it is clear that in the perception of the Government, the risk carried out by the combatised personnel during the course of their duties, is higher than the non- combatised personnel and, therefore, the Government is justified in granting this allowance to the combatised CPMF‟s personnel. A reading of the Office Memorandum dated 16th April, 2009 as well as the clarifications placed on record clearly indicate that the risk/hardship 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. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the basis for this allowance is a particular location and not the duties being carried out by the personnel. I also find it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners that they run identical risk and hardship while discharging their duties as done by the combatised personnel.
31. The petitioners are civilian employees and are not expected to be available on duty for 24 hours as is required in the case of combatants. The petitioners are having separate job responsibilities and not at par with the combatant employees. The combatants are liable to perform operational duties like patrolling, ambush, raids etc. whereas the civilians are not susceptible to such onerous duties. The non- combatant personnel are bound by the Recruitment Rules under which they are recruited and therefore required to serve in any areas as directed by the authorities.
32. There is no parity between non-combatised personnel and combatised personnel for this purpose on account of different nature of WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 12 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 their duties. This is a reasonable classification having nexus to the object to be achieved. The petitioners being non-combatised personnel are not entitled to the allowance in question.
33. A perusal of the record shows that all the posts of the Force have been combatised vide Ministry of Home Affairs order dated 19th September, 1989 and 27th November, 2008 but the petitioners have not exercised the option. The recruitment in these posts is being undertaken in combatised ranks only. It has been informed that civilian staff working in the Assam Rifles who are willing and found fit to be combatised has already been combatised vide HQ DGAR letter dated 18th November, 2011.
34. A clarification received from the Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 11th July, 2011 that Special Duty Allowance is a part of Compensatory Allowance and the personnel who are receiving Special Duty Allowance are not eligible for risk/hardship based allowance along with the Special Duty Allowance. A clarification on the subject also received from the Ministry of Home Affairs vide corrigendum dated 23rd August, 2012 in connection with the letter dated 16th April, 2009 of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The corrigendum dated 23rd August, 2012 (Annexure-R-5 to the counter affidavit) is reproduced herein below:-
"No. II.27012/16/2011-PF.I Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Finance Wing) North Block, New Delhi Dated, the 23rd August, 2012 // Corrigendum // Sub: Clarification on grant of risk/hardship based allowance to CAPF personnel in North Eastern Region - regarding.
In continuation of OM No. II-27012/56/2008-PF.I dated 16th April 2009, the undersigned is directed to convey the sanction of the President for addition of following in para 4 of the order as under:WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 13 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014
"The existing package of compensatory allowance in NE Region will also include Special Duty Allowance (SDA) as a part of existing package of compensatory allowance and hence SDA and Risk/Hardship Allowance cannot be paid simultaneously."
2. This order will apply with immediate effect.
3. This issue with the concurrence of IFD vide Diary No. 105876/Fin.II/12 dated 22.8.2012 on the advice of Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) vide their I.D. No. 11(4)2011-E.II(B) dated 04.08.2012.
Sd/-
(Sreyasl Chaudhuri) Director (Police Finance)"
35. Differentia treatment of combatised and non-combatised personnel has also been upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of „Union of India and Others v. Ram Gopal Agarwal and Others‟, (1998) 2 SCC 589. In para 10 of the judgment the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that there is clear distinction in the terms and conditions of service, 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, is arduous in nature in the operational and sensitive areas. In fact even the non-combatised personnel while working in the operational areas and such sensitive places are granted the ration allowances. It is only when they are working in static areas there is no provision for this allowance. Even terms and conditions, service conditions are totally different. The combatised personnel are governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act and Rules which is an army rule more stringent in nature while non-combatised staff is governed by the civilian law, namely, CCS 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 perform overtime duties, night duties, duties in hazardous places, viz., mountain terrain at heights or at sensitive border areas an additional allowance is made applicable to the nature of work they perform. Similarly, 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 between the two. Ones not opting to enjoy the benefit, as in the present case, to continue in service of one category up to larger length of service (55 years) and not to involve in the hazardous nature of duties with stringent service conditions cannot come WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 14 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 forward to claim the benefit of the other category also on the ground of discrimination. In fact, treating unequal to be equal itself would be discriminatory. Thus, we conclude it is neither a case of "equal pay for equal work" nor a case of discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
36. In B. Prasad‟s case (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court considered the entitlement of allowances and facilities for civilian employees working in the defence services in the States and Union Territories of the North Eastern Region. In paras 5 and 6 of the judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"5. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that 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 17-4- 1995, they are entitled to both the Special Duty Allowance as well as Field Area Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance. 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 up to that date. Thereafter, all the personnel whether transferred earlier to that or transferred from or after that date, shall be entitled to payment of only one set of Special Duty Allowance in terms of the above modified order.
6.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 personnel deployed there. Necessarily, they alone require the double payment as ordered by the Government but they cannot be deprived of the same since they are facing imminent hostilities in hilly areas risking their lives as envisaged in the proceedings of the Army dated 13-1-1994. 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 right in saying that the wording of the order requires modification. The Government is directed to modify the order and issue the corrigendum accordingly."
37. The case of B. Prasad (Supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the said case pertains to Defence Force i.e. Army and not Para Military Force like Assam Rifles. Moreover, even the said case the Hon‟ble WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 15 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014 Supreme Court has held that the dual benefits like Special Duty Allowance and Special Compensatory Allowance (Remote Locality) cannot be paid to civilian employees after modification of the Rules w.e.f. 17th April, 1995.
38. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents. The present petitions being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dated: 15th September, 2017 JUDGE V. Lyndem WP(C) No. 365 of 2014 Page 16 of 16 WP(C) No. 84 of 2015 WP(C) No. 120 of 2014