TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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 and is entitled to Special (Duty) Allowance he being posted in unit Jorhat 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rters 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 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 personnel who were posted in North Eastern Region were entitled for the benefits as per the O.M. dated 14.12.198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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 by same Office Memorandum which is to the following effect: (iii) Special (Duty) Allowance: Central Government civilian employees who have All-India transfer liability will be granted a Special (Duty) Allowance at the rate of 25 per cent of basic pay subject to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion". 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 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 personnel 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 v. State of Bihar. In paragraph 5, following has been laid down: 5.....