DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF & ORS.versusJANARDAN SINGH & ORS.

                         [2018] 5 S.C.R. 81                              81


              DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF & ORS.                              A
                                  v.
                   JANARDAN SINGH & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 5850 of 2011)
                           JULY 02, 2018                                 B
  [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
       Service Law – Allowances – Special (Duty) Allowances –
Claim of – On facts, by the Government Order dated 31.03.1987,
benefit of Special (Duty) Allowances extended to CRPF personnels
                                                                         C
posted and serving, and had their headquarters in North Eastern
Region – Respondents-pharmacists in CRPF posted in North Eastern
Region but their Headquarters were in Gwalior, sought Special
(Duty) Allowances for the period during which they were posted in
the North Eastern Region – However, case of Director General,
CRPF that respondents entitled to Special (Duty) Allowances only         D
with effect from 03.08.2005 when by the Office Memorandum, the
Government allowed the claim of CRPF personnel that benefits
would be extended to all whether their headquarters are in North
Eastern Region or not – Courts below granted Special (Duty)
Allowances to the respondents for the period they actually worked
                                                                         E
in the North Eastern Region – On appeal, held: When the purpose
is to encourage and retain the personnel in North Eastern Region,
denial of benefit of Special (Duty) Allowance to those who although
posted and serving in North Eastern Region but have their
Headquarter outside the North East Region does not have any
rational nexus with object sought to be achieved – Perusal of the        F
Order dated 03.08.2005 does not indicate that the said benefit was
intended only after 03.08.2005 – Order uses the words ‘it is clarified
that allowance would be admissible to the personnels who are
actually working in the North East Region’ – Order was clarificatory
in nature – To differentiate the employees in two categories, whose
                                                                         G
Headquarters are within North Eastern Region and whose
Headquarters are outside the North Eastern Region, clearly indicate
that classification is not founded on any intelligible differentia –
Classification as made in the GO dated 31.03.1987 did not pass
the twin test – Government having itself realised the error, corrected
                                                                         H
                                 81
82           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A    the same by GO dated 03.08.2005 – Thus, it 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 – Order passed by the courts below
     upheld.
B          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
           HELD: 1.1 The main Office Memorandum by which Special
     (Duty) Allowance was decided to be granted is dated 14.12.1983.
     A perusal of the said Memorandum clearly indicates that genesis
     of grant of Special (Duty) Allowance was posting of person in North
C    Eastern Region. The said benefits were extended to attract and
     retain the services of the competent officers serving in North
     Eastern Region. 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
D    of which orders was claimed in the claim petition filed by the
     respondents before the Tribunal. A perusal of the letter dated
     15.04.2005 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
E    although there was no denial that their posting was in North
     Eastern Region. [Paras 9, 11-13][88-F; 89-C-F]
           1.2 The purpose and object of granting the benefit was to
     reward the persons who are posted in the North Eastern Region.
     The tribunal has directed for granting the benefit to the
F    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, it cannot be
     seen 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
G    benefit is attached to their posting in the North Eastern Region
     and denial on the ground that their Headquarters are in Shivpuri/
     Gwalior has no nexus with their claim. [Para 14][89-F-H; 90-A]
           1.3 A perusal of the Order dated 03.08.2005 does not
     indicate that the said benefit was intended only after 03.08.2005.
H
     DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF v. JANARDAN SINGH                          83


Paragraph 2 of the order uses the words “it is clarified that          A
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. [Para 16][90-B-C]
      1.4 By Government Order dated 31.03.1987 Special (Duty)
Allowance was extended to CRPF personnel posted and serving            B
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. [Para 17][90-C-D]
      1.5 Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification       C
but for passing test of permissible classification there are two
conditions which have been time and again laid down and
reiterated. There is no intelligible differentia between two classes
of employees posted and serving in North East Region. 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        D
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-whose Headquarters are within North Eastern
Region and whose Headquarters are outside the Region, clearly          E
indicate that classification is not founded on any intelligible
differentia. 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 to those who although posted and serving in North Eastern
Region have their Headquarter outside the North East Region            F
does not have any rational nexus with object sought to be
achieved. [Paras 18, 20 and 21][90-+F; 91-E-H; 92-A]
      Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 191
      : 1955 SCR 1045; Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia
      and others v. Union of India and others AIR 1970 SC              G
      1453 : [1970] 1 SCR 479 – referred to.
     1.6 The classification as made in the Government Order
dated 31.03.1987 does not pass the twin test. The Government
having itself realised the error has corrected the same by
                                                                       H
84            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A    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
     or outside the North Eastern Region. [Para 22][92-A-B]
            1.7 When the earlier classification as envisaged by GO dated
B    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
     Government came with the clarification only on 03.08.2005 shall
     neither be equitable nor shall stand the test of equality before
     the law. When the denial did not pass the twin test of valid
     classification and was unconstitutional to deny the said benefit
C    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. Thus, there is no
     ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. [Paras
     23-25][92-C-E]
D                            Case Law Reference
           [1955] SCR 1045            referred to              Para 18
           [1970] 1 SCR 479           referred to              Para 19
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5850
E    of 2011.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2008 of the High Court
     of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8608 of 2008.
           Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Kiran Bhardwaj, Shailender Saini,
     Ayush Anand, Shubhandu Anand, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advs. for the
F
     Appellants.
           Yatish Mohan, Sumit Kr. Jha, Subhash Chandra Sagar (for E.C.
     Vidya Sagar), Advs. for the Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G           ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Director-General, CRPF, the Union
     of India and Addittional-Director-General, 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
H
      DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF v. JANARDAN SINGH                                   85
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Tribunal dated 05.11.2007 by which claim of Special (Duty) Allowance             A
of the respondent was accepted.
       2. Brief facts of the case are:
        The Government of India, Ministry of Finance 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           B
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                   C
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               D
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 Johrat in Assam. The representation was replied by letter dated
15.04.2005 of office of the commandant stating that since Headquarter            E
of Personnel is in Shivpuri/Gwalior, hence, person is not entitled for Special
(Duty) Allowance. Letter from Deputy-Inspector-General of Police dated
11.07.2005 was sent to the Commandant, CRPF, informing that although
Director-General 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           F
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. A-I-3/Inst-Accts-3/PF-III                              G
                           Government of India
                        Ministry of Home Affairs

                                                                                 H
86            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A                                                   North Block, New Delhi
                                                  Dated, the 3rd August, 2005
                               OFFICE MEMORANDUM
           SUB: ALLOWANCE AND FACILITIES FOR CIVILIAN
B          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
C    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
D    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.
            4. The issue in this appeal is a very limited issue i.e. whether the
E    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.
F           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
G    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 entire period when they were posted in the North
     Eastern Region. The respondents were not eligible for Special (Duty)
H
      DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF v. JANARDAN SINGH                            87
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Allowance since as when they were deployed in the North Eastern Region    A
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    B
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
                                                                          C
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 following
effect:
                “   No. A-I-3/Inst-Accts-3/PF-III                         D
                        Government of India
                       Ministry of Home Affairs
                                             North Block, New Delhi
                                           Dated, the 3rd August, 2005    E
                    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                           F
      ISLANDS AND LAKSHADWEEP.
        I am directed to refer to the Ministry’s letter no.II–27012/31/
      85-FP- 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)            G
      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
                                                                          H
88             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A          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/
           83-E-IV dated 14.12.1983 read with their O.M.No.11(5)/97-E-
           II(B) 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.
B
           3. The issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance, Deptt.
           of Expenditure, E-II(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.
C                                                                 Sd/-
                                                         (Ranjanesh Sahai)
                                                    Director(Police Finance)”
            8. Paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum indicates that it was
D    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
E
     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 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.
F    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
G          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
H
      DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF v. JANARDAN SINGH                                89
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      serving in this region and to suggest suitable improvements. The        A
      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:                           B
      “(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 a ceiling of Rs.400/-
      per month on posting to any station in the North Eastern Region.....”   C

       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.
                                                                              D
      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
Tribunal.                                                                     E
       13. A perusal of the letter dated 15.04.2005 (Annexure-P5)
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.                                          F
       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              G
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 Headquarters are in
                                                                              H
90             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A    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
B    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”.
C    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
D    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
E    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,
F    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, however, to pass the
G          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.
H
      DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF v. JANARDAN SINGH                                 91
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      The classification may be founded on different bases; namely,            A
      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
                                                                               B
      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:
                                                                               C
      “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 the Act the Court has to apply a dual test in examining its
      validity (1) whether the classification is rational and based            D
      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...”                                                               E
        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               F
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.                                                      G
      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
                                                                               H
92                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A    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
B    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
C    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
     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
D    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
E    interfere with the judgment of the High Court. In the result, the appeal is
     dismissed.


     Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal dismissed.


F




G




H