1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5850 OF 2011

DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF & ORS.   ...APPELLANTS 

VERSUS 

JANARDAN SINGH & ORS.      ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

1.   Director­General,   CRPF,   the   Union   of   India   and

Addittional­Director­General, group centre, CRPF, has

come up in this appeal questioning the judgment of

Allahabad   High   Court   dated   14.02.2008   by   which

judgment the High Court dismissed Writ Petition filed

by   the   appellant   upholding   the   order   of   Central

Administrative   Tribunal   dated   05.11.2007   by   which

claim of Special (Duty) Allowance of the respondent

was accepted. 

2. Brief facts of the case are:

The   Government   of   India,   Ministry   of   Finance

2

vide its Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 decided

to extend certain benefits to the officers in service

in North Eastern Region of the country. One of the

benefits which was decided to be extended to those

employees/officers   was   to   grant   Special   (Duty)

Allowance   on   posting   to   any   station   in   the   North

Eastern Region. The said benefits were subsequently

extended to the employees of CRPF. The respondents

2,3 and 4 were appointed as pharmacists in CRPF on

08.09.1989,   28.06.1988   and   11.06.1981   respectively

and they were posted in different places in India

including   North   Eastern   Region.   A   letter   dated

31.03.1987   was   issued   by   Government   of   India,

Ministry   of   Home   Affairs,   according   to   which   the

benefit of O.M. dated 28.12.1983 read with O.M. dated

29.10.1986   is   to   be   extended   to   BSF,   CRPF   &   CISF

personnel posted and serving in North Eastern Region

having   their   Headquarters   in   that   region.   The

respondents   submitted   an   application   regarding

sanction of Special (Duty) Allowance. The respondent

case was that he is posted in North Eastern Region

3

and is entitled to Special (Duty) Allowance he being

posted in unit Johrat in Assam. The representation

was replied by letter dated 15.04.2005 of office of

the   commandant   stating   that   since   Headquarter   of

Personnel is in Shivpuri/Gwalior, hence, person is

not   entitled   for   Special   (Duty)   Allowance.   Letter

from   Deputy­Inspector­General   of   Police   dated

11.07.2005   was   sent   to   the   Commandant,   CRPF,

informing   that   although   Director­General   by   his

letter dated 12.03.1992 has sent proposal to Ministry

of Home Affairs that Special (Duty) Allowance should

be given to all the battalions whose Headquarters are

not in the North East but the battalions are deployed

in the North East. It was further stated that the

consent of Ministry of Home Affairs has not yet been

received. On 3rd August 2005, Government of India,

Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   issued   an   order   on   the

subject:

"No. A­I­3/Inst­Accts­3/PF­III

Government of India

   Ministry of Home Affairs

4

North Block, New Delhi

    Dated,   the   3

rd

August, 2005

      OFFICE MEMORANDUM

SUB:   ALLOWANCE   AND   FACILITIES   FOR

CIVILIAN   EMPLOYEES   OF   THE   CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT   SERVING   IN   THE   STATES   AND

UNION   TERRITORIES   OF   NORTH   EASTERN

REGION, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND

LAKSHADWEEP.” 

3.   The   Order   clarified   that   allowance   to   be

admissible to the personnel who were actually working

in   the   North   East   Region.   The   respondents   filed

Original Application No.778 of 2006 before Central

Administrative   Tribunal   claiming   grant   of   Special

(Duty) Allowance as per the Order dated 14.12.1983.

The Central Administrative Tribunal by its judgment

and Order dated 05.11.2007 directed for sanction of

Special (Duty) Allowance to the applicants for the

period they have actually worked in the North Eastern

Region.   Against   the   Order   of   Tribunal,   appellant

filed a Writ Petition in Allahabad High Court which

was dismissed on 14.02.2008 aggreived against which

Order the present appeal has been filed.

5

4. The issue in this appeal is a very limited issue

i.e.   whether   the   respondents   were   entitled   for

Special (Duty) Allowances for the period during which

they were posted in North Eastern Region from the

date of their posting in the North Eastern Region or

only   with   effect   from   03.08.2005   when   the   Office

Memorandum   was   issued   by   the   Government   of   India

which allowed the claim of CPF personnels.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the

claim of respondents for Special (Duty) Allowance was

earlier rejected since, although they were working in

the North East Region but their Headquarters were in

Shivpuri/Gwalior. He submits that by Government Order

dated 03.08.2005 it was decided to extend benefits to

all whether their Headquarters are in North Eastern

Region or not. Thus, he submits that the respondents

were entitled for Special (Duty) Allowance only with

effect from 03.08.2005. Both Tribunal and the High

Court committed an error in directing for payment of

Special (Duty) Allowance to the respondents for the

6

entire   period   when   they   were   posted   in   the   North

Eastern Region. The respondents were not eligible for

Special   (Duty)   Allowance   since   as   when   they   were

deployed   in   the   North   Eastern   Region   their

Headquarters were situated outside of North Eastern

Region.

6.   The   submissions   are   refuted   by   learned   counsel

appearing for the respondents. It is contended that

Special   (Duty)   Allowance   was   granted   to   those   who

were employed in North Eastern Region. There is no

dispute that respondents were posted in North Eastern

Region. Their claim could not have been denied on the

ground that although their battalions were posted in

North Eastern Region but their Headquarters were out

of   North   Eastern   Region.   He   submits   that   the

Government   Order   dated   03.08.2005   is   clarificatory

which makes it clear that all personnels who were

posted in North Eastern Region were entitled for the

benefits as per the O.M. dated 14.12.1983 read with

O.M. dated 29.05.2002. 

7. The Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2005 is to the

7

following effect:

"   No. A­I­3/Inst­Accts­3/PF­III

Government of India

   Ministry of Home Affairs

North Block, New Delhi

Dated, the 3

rd

 August, 2005

      OFFICE MEMORANDUM

SUB:   ALLOWANCE   AND   FACILITIES   FOR

CIVILIAN   EMPLOYEES   OF   THE   CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT   SERVING   IN   THE   STATES   AND

UNION   TERRITORIES   OF   NORTH   EASTERN

REGION, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND

LAKSHADWEEP.

I   am   directed   to   refer   to   the

Ministry's letter no.II–27012/31/85­FP­

II dated 31.03.1987 vide which the CPF

personnel   posted   in   the   North   Eastern

Region and not having their Headquarter

in   the   North   Eastern   Region   were   not

getting   Special   (Duty)   Allowance

because   of   condition   that   the

Headquarters   of   such   personnel   should

also be in North East.

2.The matter has since been examined

in   consultation   with   Ministry   of

Finance   and   it   has   been   decided   to

consider   and   allow   the   claim   of   CPF

personnel delpoyed in North East Region

in the light of criteria laid down in

Finance   Minsitry's

O.M.No.20014/3/83­E­IV dated 14.12.1983

read with their O.M.No.11(5)/97­E­II(B)

8

dated 29.05.2002. It is also clarified

that the allowance would be admissible

only to the personnel who are actually

working in the North East Region.

3. The issues with the concurrence of

Ministry   of   Finance,   Deptt.   of

Expenditure, E­II(B) Branch vide UO No.

315/05 dated 10.08.2005 and integrated

Finance Division of this Ministry vide

their   Dy.   No.748/Fin.11/05   dated

03.08.2005.

Sd/­        

(Ranjanesh Sahai)   

Director(Police Finance)”

8.Paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum indicates

that   it   was   decided   to   allow   the   claim   of   CPF

personnels deployed in North Eastern Region in the

light   of   criteria   laid   down   in   Office   Memorandum

dated 14.12.1983 read with Office Memorandum dated

29.05.2002. It was further   clarified  that allowance

would be admissible only to the personnels who were

actually working in the North Eastern Region.

9. The issue is to whether the benefit of the above

Office Memorandum is to be given with effect from

03.08.2005   only   or   the   benefit   of   Special   (Duty)

Allowance is admissible after Office Memorandum dated

9

14.12.1983   was   decided   to   be   extended   to   CRPF

personnels   in   the   year   1987.   The   main   Office

Memorandum   by   which   Special   (Duty)   Allowance   was

decided   to   be   granted   is   dated   14.12.1983.   The

purpose and object for granting the said benefit is

explained in opening paragraph of Office Memorandum

which is to the following effect:

"The   need   for   attracting   and

retaining   the   services   of   competent

officers   of   service   in   the   North

Eastern Region comprising the State of

Assam,   Meghalaya,   Manipur,   Nagaland

and Tripura and the Union Territories

of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram has

been   engaging   the   attention   of   the

Government   for   some   time.   The

Government   had   appointed   a   Committee

under   the   Chairmanship   of   Secretary,

Department   of   Personnel   &

Administrative Reforms, to review the

existing   allowances   and   facilities

admissible   in   the   various   categories

of   Civilian   Central   Government

employees serving in this region and

to suggest suitable improvements. The

recommendations of the Committee have

been   carefully   considered   by   the

Government   and   the   President   is   now

released to decide as following...."

10. Further, Special (Duty) Allowance is sanctioned

10

by same Office Memorandum which is to the following

effect:

"(iii) Special (Duty) Allowance:­

Central   Government   civilian

employees who have All­India transfer

liability   will   be   granted   a   Special

(Duty) Allowance at the rate of 25 per

cent of basic pay subject to a ceiling

of   Rs.400/­   per   month   on   posting   to

any   station   in   the   North   Eastern

Region....."

11.A   perusal   of   the   aforesaid   clearly   indicates

that genesis of grant of Special (Duty) Allowance was

posting of person in North Eastern Region. The said

benefits   were   extended   to   attract   and   retain   the

services of the competent officers serving in North

Eastern Region. 

12.There is no dispute that the said benefit was

extended   to   CRPF   personnels   also.   The   benefit   as

extended by Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 was

revised from time to time and by 29.08.1986 revised

orders   were   issued   with   effect   from   01.10.1986,

benefit   of   which   orders   was   claimed   in   the   claim

petition   filed   by   the   respondents   before   the

11

Tribunal.

13.A   perusal   of   the   letter   dated   15.04.2005

(Annexure­P5) indicates that only reason for denying

the Special (Duty) Allowance to the respondents was

that their Headquarters were in Shivpuri/Gwalior i.e.

out of North Eastern Region although there was no

denial   that   their   posting   was   in   North   Eastern

Region. 

14.The purpose and object of granting the benefit

as noticed above was to reward the persons who are

posted in the North Eastern Region. The Tribunal has

directed for granting the benefit to the respondents

for the period they have actually worked in the North

Eastern Region. When the basis for granting Special

(Duty) Allowance was posting in North Eastern Region,

we   fail   to   see   that   how   the   respondents   who   were

posted in the North Eastern Region would have been

denied   the   Special   (Duty)   Allowance   on   the   ground

that their Headquarters are in Shivpuri/Gwalior. The

benefit is attached to their posting in the North

Eastern Region and denial on the ground that their

12

Headquarters   are   in   Shivpuri/Gwalior   has   no   nexus

with their claim. The Tribunal has allowed that claim

which has been affirmed by the High Court.

15. Much emphasis has been given by the counsel for

the   appellant   that   Order   dated   03.08.2005   has

prospective application only and the benefit could

have given only with effect from 03.08.2005 by which

period some of the respondents were posted out of

North Eastern Region. 

16.A perusal of the Order dated 03.08.2005 does not

indicate   that   the   said   benefit   was   intended   only

after 03.08.2005. Paragraph 2 of the order uses the

words   "it   is   clarified   that   allowance   would   be

admissible to the personnels who are actually working

in the North East Region". The Order issued by the

Government was clarificatory in nature. 

17. We have already noticed that by Government Order

dated   31.03.1987   Special   (Duty)   Allowance   was

extended   to   CRPF   personnel   posted   and   serving   in

North East Region who had their Headquarters also in

that   region.   Obvious   inference   was   that   those

13

personnel   posted   and   serving   in   North   East   Region

whose Headquarters were not in that region were not

entitled to the benefit. Whether such classification

for extending the benefit to one class of personnel

who were both posted and serving there and had their

Headquarter   there   and   those   personnels   who   were

posted and serving there and having their Headquarter

outside the North East Region is valid or not and

passes the test of equality before law under Article

14 is the question also needs to be considered .

18.Article   14   does   not   prohibit   reasonable

classification but for passing test of permissible

classification there are two conditions which have

been time and again laid down and reiterated. It is

useful to refer to the Constitution Bench judgment of

this   Court   in  AIR   1955   SC   191,   Budhan   Choudhary

versus State of Bihar . In paragraph 5, following has

been laid down:­

"5....It   is   now   well   established

that   while   Article   14   forbids   class

legislation,   it   does   not   forbid

reasonable   classification   for   the

purposes   of   legislation.   In   order,

14

however,   to   pass   the   test   of

permissible   classification   two

conditions must be fulfilled, namely,

(i)   that   the   classification   must   be

founded on an intelligible differentia

which distinguishes persons or things

that are grouped together from others

left out of the group and ( ii) that

differentia   must   have   a   rational

relation   to   the   object   sought   to   be

achieved by the statute in question.

The classification may be founded on

different bases; namely, geographical,

or according to objects or occupations

or the like. What is necessary is that

there   must   be   a   nexus   between   the

basis of classification and the object

of the Act under consideration. It is

also well established by the decisions

of this Court that Article 14 condemns

discrimination   not   only   by   a

substantive law but also by a law of

procedure..."

19.Another judgment which needs to be noticed with

regard to Article 14 is a judgment of this Court in

AIR 1970 SC 1453, Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and

others vs. Union of India and others .  In paragraph

23, following has been laid down:

“23....When   a   law   is   challenged   as

violative   of   Article   14   of   the

Constitution   it   is   necessary   in   the

first   place   to   ascertain   the   policy

underlying the statute and the object

intended to be achieved by it. Having

ascertained the policy and object of

15

the Act the Court has to apply a dual

test   in   examining   its   validity   (1)

whether the classification is rational

and   based   upon   an   intelligible

differentia   which   distinguishes

persons   or   things   that   are   grouped

together from others that are left out

of the group and (2)whether the basis

of   differentiation   has   any   rational

nexus   or   relation   with   its   avowed

policy and object..."

20.When we apply the ratio as laid down above we

find   that   there   is   no   intelligible   differentia

between two classes of employees posted and serving

in North East Region as noted above. The policy of

law as is clear from the original Government Order

dated 14.12.1983,  it is clear that Government came

with the scheme of Special (Duty) Allowance with the

object   and   purpose   of   encouraging,   attracting   and

retaining the services of the officers in the North

Eastern Region. To differentiate the employees in two

categories   i.e.   (i)   whose   Headquarters   are   within

North Eastern Region and (ii) whose Headquarters are

outside the North Eastern Region, clearly indicate

that   classification   is   not   founded   on   any

intelligible differentia .

16

21. Further the differentia has no rational relation

to the object sought to be achieved. When the purpose

is to encourage and retain the personnel in North

Eastern Region to deny the benefit of Special (Duty)

Allowance to those who although posted and serving in

North Eastern Region have their Headquarter outside

the   North   East   Region   does   not   have   any   rational

nexus with object sought to be achieved.

22.   The   classification   as   made   in   the   Government

Order dated 31.03.1987 does not pass the twin test as

noted above. The Government having itself realised

the error has corrected the same by Government Order

dated   03.08.2005   permitted   the   Special   (Duty)

Allowance to all who are posted and serving in North

East   Region   irrespective   of   the   facts   as   whether

their   Headquarters   are   within   the   North   Eastern

Region or outside the North Eastern Region.

23.When the earlier classification as envisaged by

Government   Order   dated   31.03.1987   itself   not   been

valid to deny the benefit to those who were entitled

to the Special (Duty) Allowance on the ground that

17

Government   came   with   the   clarification   only   on

03.08.2005 shall neither be equitable nor shall stand

the test of equality before the law.

24. When the denial as noted above did not pass the

twin   test   of   valid   classification   and   was

unconstitutional   to   deny   the   said   benefit   on   the

premise that Government corrected its error only on

03.08.2005, hence, with effect from 03.08.2005 only

the   benefit   should   be   given   does   not   appeal   to

reason.

25.In view of foregoing discussions, we do not find

any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High

Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

..........................J.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

..........................J.

    ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI,

JULY 02,  2018