Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.4. Details of the places under each of the six groups mentioned above and the areas which form part of the City urban agglomeration are given in annexures I and II respectively.
2.5. Government servants shall be entitled to HRA and CCA with reference to their basic pay at the rates shown below :-
Tabular statement omitted (According to the table the HRA/CCA is fixed with reference to the basic pay and the class of city or other place).
Para 2.6. on which the respondents - writ petitioners placed much reliance is as follows :-

(iii) staff of the Universities/Engineering colleges who are drawing pay in the UGC scales of pay/AICTE scales of pay.

6.1. The HRA and CCA sanctioned by this order shall be payable in cash from the month of April 1990 and onwards until further orders.

In Annexure I, 'A' class city which is Bangalore Urban Agglomeration, 'B2' cities, 'D' towns and 'E' places with a population of less than 25,000 are mentioned. Mangalore (Urban Agglomeration) is one amongst 'C' cities. Items VI of Annexure II pertains to Mangalore Urban Agglomeration; Konaje is not one of the places specified therein.

It is clear from para 2.8 that HRA and CCA is determined with reference to the place of duty. The place of duty in the instant case is Konaje where the University campus is located. The village Konaje is outside the City Corporation limits. It is said to be at a distance of 5 kms. from the outer limits of the Mangalore City Corporation. However, if it falls under Mangalore Urban Agglomeration, the rate of HRA/CCA applicable for 'C' class city employees is payable because under classification 'C' in Annexure I, Mangalore Urban Agglomeration is included. The next step is to identify what is Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. We need not determine this question with reference to the enactment in which the expression 'Urban Agglomeration' or an equivalent expression occurs. The answer is provided by the very GO in Annexure II. Para 2.4 makes it explicit that the areas which form part of the city urban agglomeration are given in Annexure H. As per item VI of Annexure II, Mangalore Urban Agglomeration consists of (a) Aple; (b) Derebail (i) Derebail, (ii) Bangrakalur; (c) Kankanadi; (d) Kavuru; (e) Kotekare; (O Mangalore (i) Mangalore (ii) Kadri (iii) Maroli. It appears that the places which are included in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration are either situate in Corporation limits or within the close proximity to the Corporation area. Konaje, as already mentioned, is at a distance of 5 kms. from the Corporation limits and it is not included in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. The G.O. dated 4.5.1990 governs the drawal of HRA and CCA during the relevant period. It is brought to our notice that on August 10, 1999, a fresh' G.O. was issued revising the rates of HRA and CCA based on 1991 census. Annexure I almost remains the same. In Annexure II, under the head 'Mangalore Urban Agglomeration' we find some changes and inclusion of three more localities. Even here, Konaje stands omitted. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, when there is definite Identification of the Mangalore Urban Agglomeration in the relevant notification relating to HRA/CCA, it is not open to the Court to look into the notification issued for a different purpose under a different enactment. The mere fact that the Government of Karnataka extended the peripheral area falling within the purview of Mangalore Urban Development Authority so as to cover several out-lying areas including Konaje does not ipso facto entitle the university employees to draw HRA/ CCA at the rates applicable to 'C' class city-based employees. At best, the notification issued under Karnataka Urban and Rural Planning Act could only pave the way for appropriate decision to be taken by the State Government afresh.

In considering the question from the stand point of Article 14, it is to be borne in mind that the impugned orders of the Government dated 13.2.1996, 5.3.1997 and 24.5.1997 do not, by themselves, fall foul of Article 14. These orders were issued only to rectify the mistake that was committed in extending the benefit of HRA and CCA applicable to 'C' class city to the Mangalore University employees. As already noticed, the entitlement to HRA/CCA arose essentially from G.O. No. ED:67:SRP:89 dated 4.5.1990. Applying the rules contained in that G.O., the employees of Mangalore University will only be entitled to draw the said allowances at the meagre rate applicable to 'E' class station because the place where Mangalore University is located comes under 'E' class. To repeat, Konaje is not included in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. The grievance of the respondents, therefore, arises on account of that. However, the respondents have not assailed the G.O. dated 4.5.1990 on the ground that non-inclusion of Konage in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration ('C' class) is an instance of inequality arising from lack of proper classification or that there is an element of arbitrariness in specifying the places comprised in Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. The limited challenge to the G.O. of 1990 which received approval of the Division Bench of the High Court was on the ground that there was a discrimination as between the employees working in peripherial area of Mangalore City Corporation and Bangalore City Corporation. In other words, the respondent - writ petitions have built up their plea of violation of Article 14 by taking the limited ground that the same benefit as was conferred by para 2.6 on the employees posted to work in any place situated within a distance of 8 Kms. from the periphery of Bangalore City Corporation limits (though not part of Bangalore Urban Agglomeration) ought to have been extended to the employees working within the same peripheral area of Mangalore City Corporation, even if their place of work was outside the Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. We are unable to concur with the view expressed by the Appellate Bench of the High Court that the same yard-stick should have been applied to the employees residing within the limits of Bangalore City Corporation and Mangalore City Corporation both of whom are posted to work outside the Urban Agglomeration. The contention that the criterion of 8 Kms. limit from the periphery of municipal limits should be uniformly applied in the case of all urban areas irrespective of their categorization fails to take note of ground realities. Such extension upto 8 Kms., be it noted, is peculiar to Bangalore city only. Bangalore which is the capital of State of Karnataka is classified as 'A' class city. It cannot stand in comparison with Mangalore city. The manner of spread-over of offices, the pattern of development and the problems relating to housing and habitation will not be the same. If 8 Kms. yard-stick is prescribed in the case of Bangalore city, it does not mean that the same criterion should be applied for all other cities in the State of Karnataka. The complaint based on Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be judged by adopting a doctrinaire approach or by having regard to individual cases. It is not prudent or pragmatic to insist on a mathematically accurate classification covering diverse situations and all possible contingencies in view of the inherent complexities involved in fixing the scales of allowances based on the places of work. It is pointed out in the 'additional ground' filed in S.L.P. that the State Government has adopted Central Government's policy with regard to the pattern of regulation of HRA and CCA in respect of the employees working beyond the Corporation/City municipal limits. While formulating such rules it is difficult to envisage all situations and facts peculiar to a few places here and there. A legislative provision or an executive order of general application does not become unconstitutional merely because, in its actual application, it turns out to be disadvantageous or inequitable to certain individuals or a small section of people. That is not to say that the Government should not take note of individual cases of hardship and afford relief wherever such relief is genuinely needed; but, the rule or the provision does not become bad or obnoxious to Article 14 for the reason that the criterion adopted in the case of 'A' class city is not extended to 'B' or 'C' class city. If, as stated, by the learned senior counsel for Respondents, some of the members of University staff are compelled to reside outside the Campus by reason of non-availability of residential quarters, the Respondents have a genuine grievance and on the University authorities or Respondent-Association approaching the Government, we have no reason to think that the Government will not give earnest consideration to the problem.