Madras High Court
P. Ravi vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Its ... on 11 March, 2004
ORDER K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. The petitioner prays for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.17,132/- as ration money for the period from 6.10.1987 to 28.2.1997 and to pay ration money on par with other personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force with effect from 1.3.1997.
2. The petitioner contends that he is in the service of the Central Reserve Police Force and that the first respondent has made provision for ration money with the objective of ensuring good health and efficiency of the personnel. From 15.7.1968, ration money was sanctioned to the Non-Gazzetted Personnel working in the operational areas. The benefit was continued to the Non-Gazetted Personnel from 24.1.1975 including ministerial and hospital staff when they were deployed to certain specific areas.
3. The petitioner claims that he joined the Central Reserve Police Force on 6.10.1987 in the Group Service at Hyderabad and in the affidavit he has given particulars relating to his various assignments in different Centres during the period from 6.10.1987 till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. He claims to be entitled to 100% ration money from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1989 in view of the fact that he was deployed for internal security duties and placed at the disposal of the Karnataka State Government. However, the ration money was not paid. Therefore, he has made several representations and requested for the disbursement of the ration money. Inspite of several representations, the request of the petitioner has not been considered.
4. In the counter filed by the respondents, after giving details of the places and postings of the petitioner at different stages, the respondents contend that the ministerial and hospital staff working in the CRPF were non-combatised prior to March, 1981 and they were governed by Civil Service Rules. The grant of ration money to non-combatised members were restricted to those personnel working in certain specified/hard areas from the beginning ever since the ration money was introduced to the CRPF. The age of superannuation of the members of the Force is 55 years, whereas the age of superannuation for non-combatised ministerial and hospital staff is 58 years. In order to have a uniform procedure, during 1981, the entire staff was asked to exercise their option, either to remain either in combatised or non-combatised division. In the combatised category, the age of superannuation will be 55 years but they will be entitled for various allowances like ration money, free accommodation, free leave pass, free uniform, articles etc., However, combatisation was purely optional and those who did not opt for combatisation may continue to remain as non-combatised members and continue to draw the same pay and allowances. Most of the members of the Ministerial Staff had opted for combatisation during 1981. By memo dated 24.2.1989, the Government ordered payment of ration money to the following categories of non-combatised Non-Gazetted Officers of CRPF from time to time and not at 50% as contended in the petition:
(a) When they are posted in CRPF Battalions/Detachments deployed in internal security duties and placed at the disposal of the Statement Government/Union Territories.
(b) When they are posted in a static formation including Training Institutions located in the areas of Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Jammu and Kashmir, Lakshdweep and A.N. Ilands, ACP and Districts of Srikakulam, Khammam and Karimnagar of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Sikkim.
5. The said orders became effective from 6.10.1987 and therefore, it is clear that a non-combatised member will not be entitled to ration money while being posted to places other than the places mentioned above.
6. According to the respondents, the petitioner not having served in any of those specific areas is not entitled to claim any amount towards ration money.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after stating the facts contained in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, also contends that there is discrimination in the matter of the grant of ration money as would be evident from the letter of the Commandant to the second respondent dated 22.11.1989. The said letter reads as follows:
"The ration money bill No.19/89-90-77 dated 14/4/89 amounting to Rs.3,495/- had been returned by PAO four times with piece meal observations and was re-submitted after rectification. The bill has again been re-submitted with a fresh observation by PAO vide Memo No.PAO/77-89-90-NG dated 17.10.1989. In this connection, I would like to bring to your kind notice that similar bills of this Bn and 91 Bn had been passed earlier in normal course without any observation of this kind. It is a known fact that the Ministerial Staff is a part of our establishment performing the internal security duty and hence asking for such a certificate at this stage may kindly be reconsidered. I will be grateful if you could kindly help to solve the problem of passing the bill".
8. Reliance is placed on the observation that similar bills of the same Battalion and Battalion No.91 had been accepted earlier in the normal course. It is further stated that the Ministerial Staff being a part of the establishment performing internal security duty, they are entitled to receive ration money.
9. I have also heard Mr. V. Vaithiyalingam appearing for the respondents.
10. After referring to the reasons stated in the counter affidavit, learned counsel contends that the ration money was intended only to offset the other handicaps like lesser age of retirement in case of Personnel who had opted for combatisation. Non-combatised persons are entitled to continue upto 58 years and they are also entitled to other allowances. Learned counsel also states that as regards the claim of other persons like the petitioner, the issue was under consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply stated that on the same issue, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati had allowed similar claim in case of Union of India vs. Mr. Ram Gopal Agarwal. It is not disputed by the respondent that the said application was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the Union of India has filed SLP No.15728 of 1990 and that the same is pending for disposal.
12. I have considered the submissions of both sides.
13. A reading of the instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 24.2.1989 discloses the following requirements for being eligible to ration money.
"I am directed to convey the sanction of the President, to the payment off ration money to non-gazetted members of hospital and ministerial staff of the CRPF, who are not combatised at the same rates and terms as applicable to the combatised non-gazetted personnel of the CRPF from time to time subject to the conditions specified below:-
(1) Ration Money will be paid to non-gazetted members of hospital and ministerial staff, who are not combatised, when they are posted in CRPF Bns/Detachments deployed on internal security duties and placed at the disposal of the Governments/union Territories.
(2) Ration money will be paid to the non-gazetted hospital and ministerial staff, who are not combatised, when they are posted in static formations including Training institutions located in the following States/areas:-
Assam, Tripura, Mizoram, Megalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Jammu & Kashmir, Lakshdweep & A.N. Island, Arunachal Pradesh, areas of District Srikakulam, Warrangal, Khammam and Karim Nagar of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Sikkim.
2. The other conditions stipulated in this Ministry's letter No.11/27012/2/79/FP.II dated 10.10.1979 (copy enclosed) will remain unchanged.
3. These orders will be effective from 6.10.1987.
4. The expenditure involved will be debitable to the budget grant of CRPF.
5. This issue with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Expenditure) vide their UO No.106/E.II(B)/89 dated 3.2.89 and Integrated Finance Division vide their UO No.411/89-Fin.III-(D.I) dated 3.2.1989".
14. A perusal of the above mentioned conditions disclose that ration money will be paid to non-gazetted members of the hospital and Ministerial Staff who are not combatised but posted on security duties and placed at the disposal of the State Governments/Union Territories. The petitioner has raised a specific contention in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition that he was deployed on internal security duties and placed at the disposal of the Karnataka State Government. Though in counter several details have been given regarding the postings of the petitioner at various stages, there is no denial of the fact that he was deployed for internal security duties and at certain stages of his services, his services were placed at the disposal of the State Governments particularly, Karnataka State Government.
15. Apart from the said fact, one of the reasons stated by the Commandant in his letter dated 22.11.1989 as extracted above discloses that similar bills and claims of the same battalion and 91st Battalion have also been accepted and passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs earlier without any objection. This assertion that similarly placed individuals have been paid the ration money is not disputed by the respondents.
16. Apart from the facts stated above, it is also admitted that in a similar case, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati has ordered the payment of ration money in the case of Mr. Ram Gopal Agarwal, though the said decision is stated to be the the subject mater of a SLP before the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no reason or justification to treat this case differently. With the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.