Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has examined the hardship and difficulties, allowances or difference in pay on account of difficulties suffered by the persons posted in a such places. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India & others Vs. Ram Gopal Agrawal & others1, has held at paragraph 10 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 personnels. 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 1 (1998) 2 SCC 589 personnel are concerned, are arduous in nature in the operational and sensitive areas. In fact even the non-combatised personnel while working in that 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 therms and conditions, service conditions are totally different. The combatised personnels are governed by 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, C.C.S. 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 classs of "equal pay for equal work". In cases where some performing overtime duties, night duties, duties in hazardous places viz, mountain, terrain at heights or at sensitive borde areas an additional allowance is made applicable for 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 tow. Once not option to enjoy the benefit as in the present case, to continue in service of one category upto larger length of service (55 years) and not to involve in the hazardous nature of duties with stringent service conditions cannot come forward to claim and 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."