http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B. PRASAD, B.S.O. & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1573-1576,1578-1579,1580-1585/97)   (Arising out of SLP  (C) Nos. 17236-39, 14104, 15141-42,   15740, 25108-10 1996, SLP (C) No. 4398 /96 (CC-6860/96)]                          O R D E R      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel for the parties.      These appeals  by special  leave arise from the various orders  passed   by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal, Gauhati Bench  in different  matters.  The  main  order  was passed on 17.11.1995 in RA No, 4/95 in OA No. 49/89.      The Government  of India  have been  issuing order from time to  time  payment  of  allowances  and  facilities  for civilian  employees   of  the  Central  Government  servants working in  the States  and Union  Territories  of  the  The North-eastern region. It is not in dispute that special Duty Allowance was  ordered by  the Government @ 25% of the basic pay subject  to ceiling of Rs. 400/- per month on posting on any station  in the  North-eastern region. Subsequently, the Government have been issuing order from time to time. In the proceedings dated  April 17,  1995, The  Government modified the payment  of  the  Special  Duty  Allowance  and  Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance as under:      "The  Defence  Civilian  employees,      serving  in   the   newly   defined      modified Field Areas, will continue      to  be   entitled  to  the  Special      Compensatory   (Remote    Locality)      Allowance and  other allowances  as      admissible to defence Civilians, as      hithertofore,    under     existing      instructions   issued    by    this      ministry   from   time   to   time.      However,  in   respect  of  Defence      Civilian  employees  in  the  newly      defined   Field    Areas,   Special      Compensatory   (Remote    Locality)      Allowance and  other allowances not      concurrently admissible  along with      Field Service Concessions,"

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

    It is  contended by  Mr. P.P.  Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing  for the  Union of  India, That  the  view taken by the Tribunal that they are entitled to both, is not correct and  that they  would be  entitled to  either of the allowances. Shri  P.P. Rao, Learned senior counsel appearing for  some  of  the  respondents  has  contended  that  those civilian employee  working in the defence service at various stations in the North-eastern region were given Special Duty Allowance with  a view  to attract the competent persons and the persons  having been  deployed, are entitled to the same and the  amended concessions  would be  applicable to  those employees who  are transferred  after April  17,  1975,  All those who  were serving  earlier would  be entitled to both. Shri Arun Jaitely, Learned senior counsel Appearing for some of  the   respondents  has   drawn  our   attention  to  the distinction between  Field area  and Modified Field area and submitted  that   in  cases  where  civilian  employees  are supporting the field defence persons deployed for the border operational requirements  facing  the  immense  hostilities, they will be denied the payment of both allowances while the personnel working  in the  Modified  Field  Area,  In  other words, in  Barracks, will entitled to double benefit of both the  allowance.  This  creates  hostile  discrimination  and unjust results.      Having regards  to the  respective  contentions, we are of the  view that  the Government  having been extending the benefit of  payment of  Special Duty  Allowance to  all  the defence employees working in the North-eastern region as per the orders  issued by the Government from time to time as on April 17,  1995, They  are entitled to both the Special Duty Allowance as well as Field Area Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance.  The same  came to  be modified  w.e.f. that date.  Therefore, irrespective   of the fact whether or not they  have been  deployed earlier  to that date, all are entitled  to  both  the  allowances  only  upto  that  date. Thereafter, all the personnel whether transferred earlier to that or  transferred from  on or  after that  date, shall be entitled  to  payment  of  only  one  set  of  Special  Duty Allowance in terms of the above modified order.      As regards the payment of Special Duty Allowance to the defence civilian  personnel deployed  at the border area for support of  operational requirement,  they face the imminent hostilities supporting  the army  personnel deployed  there. Necessarily,  they  alone  require  the  double  payment  as ordered by the Government but they cannot be deprived of the same since  they are  facing imminent  hostilities in  hilly areas risking their lives as envisaged in the proceedings of the Army  dated January  13, 1994,  But the  Modified  Field Area, in other words, in the defence terminology, "barracks" in that  area in a lesser risking area; hence they shall not be entitled  to double  payment. Under  these circumstances, Mr. P.P. Malhotra is right in saying that the wording of the order requires  modification. The  Government is directed to modify the order and issue the corrigendum accordingly.      The appeals  are disposed  of accordingly.  It is  made clear that the Union of India is not entitled to recover any payments made  of the  period prior  to April  17, 1995.  No costs.