Discretionary dearness allowance and Article 14 comparison with Central scale did not justify mandamus or invalidation

A discretionary dearness allowance under Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules was held not to create an enforceable right, so mandamus could not compel payment at any specified rate. The discussion distinguishes recoverable salary arrears from a claim to obtain an allowance as a matter of grace. On Article 14, the State Resolution fixing dearness allowance on a graded basis was not invalid merely because the Central Government used a different scale; comparison with another sovereign authority was held insufficient to establish discrimination. The Resolution was therefore treated as valid within the State scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a claim for dearness allowance under Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules was justiciable and enforceable by mandamus; (ii) whether the Resolution fixing a differential scale of dearness allowance for State employees violated Article 14 of the Constitution by reason of comparison with the Central Government scale.

Issue (i): whether a claim for dearness allowance under Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules was justiciable and enforceable by mandamus.

Analysis: Rule 44 conferred only a discretionary power on the Government to grant dearness allowance and to regulate its amount and conditions. It did not create a corresponding right in Government servants or impose a duty on the State to grant allowance at any particular rate. Mandamus lies only to enforce a legal duty, and no enforceable right arose merely because a claim for allowance was made. The Court distinguished claims for accrued salary arrears, which are recoverable as debt, from a demand to compel the grant of allowance at a specified rate, which remained a matter of grace.

Conclusion: The claim was not justiciable and no mandamus or similar direction could be issued.

Issue (ii): whether the Resolution fixing a differential scale of dearness allowance for State employees violated Article 14 of the Constitution by reason of comparison with the Central Government scale.

Analysis: The impugned Resolution operated within the State scheme itself by grading allowance according to pay and applying the same basis within each slab. The challenge rested on comparing the State's decision with the Central Government's different scale. Article 14 requires scrutiny of the law impugned before the Court, and does not permit a law of one authority to be struck down merely because another authority has adopted a different policy on the same subject. Since the Central Government and the State Government were distinct law-making and executive entities, the Central scale could not be used as the test of discrimination against the State Resolution. The Committee had also fixed the scale on different considerations and had not merely adopted the Central report as such.

Conclusion: The Resolution did not offend Article 14 and was not void on the ground of discrimination.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition failed, and the State's Resolution was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary governmental grant that creates no enforceable legal right cannot be compelled by mandamus, and Article 14 cannot be invoked to invalidate a State measure merely by comparing it with a different scale adopted by another sovereign authority.

---