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.