http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION GROUP-C

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1995

BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1746            1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 757  JT 1995 (2)   533        1995 SCALE  (2)40

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.   Delay condoned. 2.   Leave granted.  The counsel for ties are heard. 3.   This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the  judgment dated May 28, 1993 passed by the  Central  Ad- ministrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter  referred to  as  Tribunal)  in O.A. No. 172 of  1972.   By  the  said judgment  the,  Tribunal  held  that  the  respondents   are entitled  to  Special  Duty Allowance  in  terms  of  Office Memorandum dated December 14, 1983 with effect from the date specifically  indicated  in the said Office  Memorandum  and directed the appellants herein to pay and clear the  Special Duty Allowance to the respondents herein within 90 days from the  date of receipt of copy of the judgment in  respect  of the  due and to release the current Special  Duty  Allowance with effect from the month of June,1993. 4.   The  respondent  No. 1 is an Association of  Group  (C) Inspectors   of  Customs  and  Central  Excise   under   the Collectorate  of  Customs and Central Excise,  Shillong  and respondent  Nos.  2  and  3 am  its  President  and  General Secretary respectively.  The respondents approached 535 the Tribunal claiming Special Duty Allowance on the strength of Office Memorandum No. 20014/2/83-E.IV dated December  14, 1983  and the Office Memorandum No.  20014/16/86.IV/E.II(13) dated  December 1, 1988 issued by the Ministry  of  Finance, Government  of  India.  The  respondent-Association  claimed that its members have all India transfer liability under the Central  Excise and Land Customs Department Group (C)  Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979 which were applicable to its members and  in  pursuance of which three of its  members  had  been transferred  and  one Smt.  Lisa L. Rynjah of  Shillong  had been  posted  at Goa under the said recruitment  Rules  and, therefore,  they are eligible and entitled to claim  Special Duty Allowance.  The appellants herein opposed and contested the aforesaid claim of the respondents before the  Tribunal.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

The  appellants took the defence by stating that the  Office Memorandum  No.  20014/3/83.E/IV dated April  20,  1987  had clarified that the Special Duty Allowance is payable only to those  officers,  incumbents of Group (C) of posts  who  are having  all  India transfer liability defined  in  the  said Office  Memorandum  keeping  in  view  the  original  Office Memorandum  dated  March 14, 1983 and  that  the  conditions stipulated in the Recruitment Rules, 1979 referred to  above cannot be taken as basis for saddling the respondents or its members  with  all India transfer liability  and  consequent payment  of Special Duty Allowance to them.  The  appellants also took the plea that all India transfer liability of  the members  of  any service/cadre or incumbent  of  any  posts/ Group of posts is to be determined by applying the tests  of recruitment  to  the service/cadre/post made  on  all  India basis  and  that  mere clauses  in  the  Recruitment  Rules/ Appointment  Order stipulating all India transfer  liability does  not make him/them eligible for grant of  Special  Duty Allowance  in terms of Office Memorandum dated December  14, 1983. 5.   After considering the rival contentions the    Tribunal observed that the contents    of  Office  Memorandum   dated April  12, 1984 as well as the letter No. 7/47/ 48.EA  dated September  28,  1984 have been fully discussed by  the  Full Bench,  Calcutta  and held that the real  test/criteria  for determination is whether all India transfer liability exists and  opined  that without recalling  the  Office  Memorandum issued  in 1983 the concerned departments had no  reason  to deny the benefit of memorandum available to certain  classes of  employees  and to withdraw its  application  to  certain other  classes.  Relying on the said Bench decision  of  the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, the Tribunal  al- lowed  the  application of the respondents by  the  impugned judgment  and  granted the relief as  stated  above  against which this appeal has been preferred. 6.   Learned  counsel for the appellants submitted that  the Tribunal   has  failed  to  appreciate  the  true   meaning, intention  and  spirit behind the term ’all  India  transfer liability’  which  occurred in the Finance  Ministry  Office Memorandum referred to above and has thus seriously erred in holding  that the members of the respondent Association  arc entitled   to  the  Special  Duty  Allowance.   He   further submitted  that the package of incentives contained  in  the Ministry’s  Office  Memorandum dated December 14,  1983  (as amended) is based on the recommendations of the committee to review  the facilities and allowance admissible  to  Central Government Employees in the North-Eastern Region and it was 536 with a view to attract and retain competent officers service in  the  States and Union Territories in  the  North-Eastern Region  that the Government of India on the  recommendations of  the  committee  made  the  provision  for  Special  Duty Allowance  to be paid to such officers who come  on  posting and  deputation to North-Eastern Region from other  Regions. It  was, therefore, submitted that since the members of  the respondent-Association belonged to the North-Eastern  Region itself  who  were recruited and posted in the  same  Region, they were not entitled for Special Duty Allowance. 7.   The main source for claiming the Special Duty Allowance is  the Office Memorandum dated December 14, 1983  the  very first paragraph of which reads as under:-               "The  need  for attracting and  retaining  the               services of competent officers for service  in               the North-Eastern Region comprising the States               of  Assam  Meghalaya,  Manipur  Nagaland   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunachal               Pradesh  and  Mizoram have been  engaging  the               attention of the Govenment 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   to  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               pleased to decide as follows." 8.   A  careful  perusal of the opening part of  the  Office Memorandum  reproduced above would show that the  Government had  appointed  a Committee under the  Chairmanship  of  the Secretary Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to review the existing allowances and facilities  admissible to the various categories of Civilian Central Government Em- ployees  serving  in  the  North-Eastern  Religion  so  that competent  officers  may be attracted and  retained  in  the North-Eastern  Region States.  The use of words  ’attracting and  retaining’ in service are very much  significant  which only suggest that it means the competent officers  belonging to  the  Region other than the  North-Eastern  Region.   The question  of  attracting  and  retaining  the  services   of competent officers who belong to North-Eastern Region itself would not arise.  The intention of the Government and spirit behind the Office Memorandum is to provide an incentive  and attraction to the competent officers belonging to the Region other than die NorthEastern region to come and serve in  the North-Eastern  Region.  It can hardly be disputed  that  the geographical, climatic, living and food conditions of people living  in  North-Eastern Region and the  States  comprising therein  are different from other  Regions of  the  country. The  North-East Regions is considered to be ’hard zone’  for various reasons and it appears that it is for these  reasons that  the  Government  provided  certain  extra   allowance, benefits and other facilities to attract competent  officers in the North-Eastern Region at least for two to three  years of  tenure  posting.  The Ministry’s  Office  Memorandum  in question  came  up for consideration before  this  Court  in Chief   General  Manager  (Telecom)  v.  S.  Rajender   C.H. Bhattacharjee & Ors. [JT 1995 (1) SC 440 ] which was decided by us by judgment dated January 18, 1995 in which this Court took the view that the said Office 537 Mumorandum  are  meant  for  attracting  and  retaining  the services of competent officers in the North-Eastern  Region, from  other  parts  of  the  country  and  not  the  persons belonging  to  that  region where they  were  appointed  and posted.   This was also the view expressed by this Court  in yet  another  case reported in J.T. 1994 (6)  443  Union  of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar & Ors. In Vijaya Kumar (Supra)  the point  for consideration was exactly identical, with  regard to  the  entitlement  to Special  Duty  Allowance  to  those employees/officers who are residents of North-Eastern Region itself  After considering the memorandum dated December  14, 1983  and other related Office Memorandums indicated  above, it was held that the purpose of the allowance was to attract persons from outside the North-Eastern Region to work in the North-Eastern   Region   because  of   inaccessibility   and difficult  terrain.  In the facts and  circumstances  stated above  the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be  upheld  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

deserves to be set aside. 9.For  the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed.   The impugned order of the tribunal is set aside and the applica- tion filed by the respondents before the tribunal for  grant of  Special  Duty Allowance to them is  dismissed.   In  the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as  to costs. 538