http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

SHRI M.V. SRINIVASA & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATES OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/07/1997

BENCH:

SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G. B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

G.B. PATTANAIK, J

In these appeals as well as the Writ Petition a common

question regarding entitlement of the employees serving

under a project but not will the project area to get project

allowance as well as the amenities like rent free quarter,

free electricity and free water supply arise for

consideration and as such as they were heard together and

are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appeals

in question are directed against the order of the Karnataka

Administrative tribunal. Admittedly the appellants are

servicing in the sate of Karnataka and have been employed in

different projects but they are posted not within the

project area and employed in different projects but they are

posted not within the project area and on the other hand are

posted either in Taluk Headquarters and elsewhere. The

Government of Karnataka by order dated 27.9.1960 sanctioned

project allowance at 20% of the pay subject to a maximum of

Rs. 75% per mensum to the officers and staff working under

the project and are stationed at the work spot. It was also

indicated therein that they will be entitled to free

quarters, free electricity and free water supply as allowed

in other similar projects executed in the state. It was

further stated in the aforesaid Government order that:-

"This is subject to revision when

decisions are taken on the

recommendations of the

Rationalisation committee"

By a subsequent letter dated 18. 12.1968 from the

Secretary to the Government PW and Electricity Department,

Bangalore addressed to the Rao Hidkal Dam, Belgaum district

it was clarified that the amenities like rent free quarter,

free electricity and free water supply sanctioned to the

project staff of Malaprabha project in Government order

Dated 27th September, 1960, are irrespective of the

headquarters of the offices and while the project in

Government order dated 27th September, 1960, are

irrespective of the headqarters of the offices and the

offices and while the project allowance sanctioned to them

is admissible only when the project staff

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

is stationed either at the project site or away from cities

and taluk headquarters, the other amenities will be

available even to the employees serving under the project

and stationed beyond the project area and posted at the

Taluk headquarters or any other place. These amenities which

had been granted to the employees serving under the project

under Government letter dated 18.12.1968, were withdrawn by

Government letter dated 20.8.1987 giving it retrospective

effect with effect from 19.12.1985. The aforesaid Government

letter dated 20th August, 1987 is extracted hereinbelow in

extenso:-

"From

The Secretary to the Government of

Mysore, P.W. & Elecy. Dept.,

Bangalore

The Rao Hidkal Dam.

Belgaum District

sub: Provision of free

Electricity to the

officials of the

Malaprabha project.

............

With reference to your letter

No. RAO. CP. R 140 dated 3rd/8th

July 1968 on the subject mentioned

above, I am directed to state that

the amenities like rent free

quarters, free electricity, free

water supply etc., sanctioned to

the project staff of the Malaprabha

project in Government Order No. PWD

7, MMP 60 DATED 24th/ 27th Sept.

1960 are irrespective of the

headquarters of the offices. While

the project allowance sanctioned to

them is admissible only when the

project staff is stationed either

at the project site or away from

cities and taluk headquarters,

these amenities are sanctioned to

the staff, in view of the fact that

though the head quarters of the

circle office and sub-division

offices are at Saundatti and other

Taluk places, these places are

devoid of rest of the amenities. As

the project allowance is in no way

conditioned by non-provision of

project amenities like housing,

electricity etc. the project staff

of the Malaprabha project circle

residing at Saundatti and other

taluk headquarters places should

therefore be held eligible for the

amenities sanctioned by Government.

The letter issued with the

concurrence of Finance Department

vide their U.O Note FD 6304-69 (W &

H)

1. Dated 26th November 1968

yours faithfully,

sd/-

U/S TO Government

PWE Deptt."

The appellants challenged the aforesaid order of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

Government before Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The

tribunal by the impugned judgement having dismissed the

applications the present appeals have been preferred. The

Writ petition in question has also been filed by the

employees working under the project challenging the

withdrawal of the project amenities by Government Order

dated 20th August, 1987 giving it retrospective effect with

effect from 19.12.1985. It is an admitted fact that these

employees though are employed in the project but are

stationed in Taluk headquarters and elsewhere and not within

the project area.

The learned counsel for the appellants raised three

contentions in assailing the order of the state Government

dated 20th August, 1987. It was urged that the employees

having been engaged in the project itself there is no

justification to make a distinction between those stationed

in the project area and others who are stationed in Taluk

headquarters and elsewhere in the matter of grant of

amenities like rent free quarters, free electricity and free

water supply. The learned counsel further contended that the

sanction having been made by order of the Government duly

authenticated in terms of power exercised under Article 166

of the Constitution, the same cannot be withdrawn merely by

a government letter and, therefore, the impugned order dated

20th August, 1987, has no value and no force in the eye of

law. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly urged that

in any view of the matter discontinuance of the amenities

with retrospective effect is on the face of it not

sustainable and the amenities having been given pursuant to

a Government order the same cannot be withdrawn with effect

from any retrospective date. The learned counsel for the

State on the other hand contended, that the employees

serving within the project area form a class by themselves

and the special allowance and amenities which the Government

sanctions to them cannot be claimed by others who are

stationed outside the project and work in the Taluk

headquarters and elsewhere. Such action of the Government

cannot be said to be discriminatory in nature. He further

contended that the initial order allowing amenities to the

employees who were stationed outside the project are was

also be a government letter and the same has been withdrawn

by another Government letter dated 20th August, 1987.

Consequently there is no infirmity in the same . So far as

the question of withdrawal of the amenities with

retrospective date the learned counsel urged that the

retrospectivity of the Government Order dated 20th August,

1987, has already been withdrawn by the subsequent

Government order and the order, therefore, become effective

from the date of issuance of the Government Order and the

order, therefore, become effective from the date of issuance

of the Government Order dated 20th August, 1987 and the

appellants cannot have any grievance on that score.

Having examined the rival contentions and having

considered the different letters of the Government from time

to time we find much force in the contentions raised on

behalf of the State and we do not find any force in the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.

In view of the admitted fact that the appellants though are

engaged in the project but have been stationed not within

the project area and are stationed in Taluk headquarters and

elsewhere the question for consideration is whether they can

be said to have been treated discriminately when project

amenities are being given only to those who are stationed

within the project area. The answer must be in the negative.

The power to grant any special allowance and amenities to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

those employees who serve the government and are posted in

places with an unfavourable condition is within the

discretion of the Government. considering the nature of

duties discharged by those who have been posted within a

project area as well as no availability of several basic

amenities of life, the Government would be well within its

power to grant some incentives like project allowance and

other amenities like free quarters, free electricity and

free water supply. But such incentives and amenities cannot

be claimed as of right by all the employees who might have

been employed in the project but are stationed outside the

project area and are serving in taluk Headquarters or

elsewhere. it is the place of work which entitles a group of

employees to get incentives and amenities in question and no

the employment in the project itself. In that view of the

matter we are unable to find and substance in the arguments

advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellants

that they are being discriminately treated. In the facts and

circumstances we do not find any discrimination in the

matter of grant of project allowance and amenities to those

of the employees who are posted in the project site itself.

The first contention of the learned counsel for thew

appellants, therefore, must be rejected.

So far as the contention regarding validity of the

impugned letter dated 20th August, 1987, not being a letter

in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution, we find that

the Tribunal itself examined this question with reference to

the original file where a decision was taken and Tribunal

came to the conclusion that the relevant Government files

disclose that the decision relating to withdrawal of the

amenities was taken by the concerned Minister of the

Department who was empowered under the rules of business to

pass such order. In that view of the matter there is no

substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel

for the appellants. That apart the letter under which the

amenities were granted to the employees serving beyond

project area, dated 18.12.1968 itself was also a letter

addressed by the Under secretary to the Government in the

same manner as the impugned letter withdrawing the amenities

dated 20th August, 1987. We, therefore, do not find ay

infirmity in the aforesaid government letter dated 20th

August, 1987 and in view of the aforesaid letter of the

state Government the project amenities cannot be granted to

those employees residing in Taluk headquarters and elsewhere

from the date of the issuance of the letter. So far as the

retrospectivity of the withdrawal is concerned it appears

that on 20th January, 1988, the Government in the PWD, CADA

and Electricity Department has issued a letter to all the

Chief Engineers intimating therein that the Government

letter dated 20th August, 1987, would be implemented only

with effect from the date of the issuance of the letter and

not with effect from any retrospective date. IN view of the

aforesaid subsequent letter of the Government dated 20th

January 1988, the amenities in question have been withdrawn

only from 20th August, 1987 and not with effect from

19.12.1985 which was indicated earlier in the letter dated

20th August, 1987. The grievance on the question of

retrospectivity, therefore,, no longer survives.

In the aforesaid premises we do not find any merits in

these appeals and the Writ petition which are accordingly

dismissed. But in the circumstance there will be no order as

to the costs.