1990 Supreme(SC) 346
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND M. FATHIMA-BEEVI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan, Appellant
Versus
Gurcharan Singh Grewal and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4034 to 4037 of 1988, D/- 13-7-1990.
AND
State of Rajasthan, Appellant
Versus
S.S. Gupta and others, Respondents.
AND
Union of India and others, Appellants
Versus
S. S. Gupta and others, Respondents.
AND
Union of India and others, Appellants
Versus
Gurcharan Singh Grewal and others, Respondents.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Central Administrative Tribunal – Employment and Service matter - Denied benefit of compensatory allowance - Rajasthan State Electricity Board - Scale of pay - Respondents, employees of Rajasthan State Government/ Rajasthan State Electricity Board were transferred on deputation to Beas Construction Board at Chandigarh, Talwara and Slapper - They Joined Beas Project on various dates Project became venture of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan after reorganisation of these States - State of Rajasthan bears burden of allowances of their employees appointed in this Project - State Government by order directed payment of Beas Project Compensatory Allowance at. rate of 20% of pay drawn subject to a maximum of 300/- rupees per month to employees of the State of Rajasthan working on the Project - Held, Employees who joined the Project after 14-9-1972, they had no option regarding the pay-scale - Order granting compensatory allowance was also in force on 14-9-1972. There had been no indication in the proceedings that employees who joined Project after 14-9-1972 should be given the option either to have the compensatory allowance or terminal cash benefit - Order denying option is thus arbitrary and discriminatory treating differently the employees who had joined the Project after 14-9-1972 in the matter of exercising their option for compensatory allowance or the terminal cash benefit. The payment of the compensatory allowance is not linked with the unified pay-scale as argued for the appellant - It has been made clear in the orders reducing the rate of compensatory allowance that employees would be entitled to receive compensatory allowance at the reduced rate irrespective of their option to receive their pay in the unified pay-scale – Hence Tribunal was correct in quashing impugned orders - Petitioners have been denied benefit of compensatory allowance arbitrarily and they have been discriminated against persons who had been similarly placed - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
FATHIMA BEEVI, J. :- These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 15-6-1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the writ petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 8 herein had been allowed and the impugned order dated 9-2-1976 and letter dated 6-12-1978 of the State of Rajasthan had been quashed. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under:-
2. The respondents, employees of the Rajasthan State Government/ Rajasthan State Electricity Board were transferred on deputation to the Beas Construction Board at Chandigarh, Talwara and Slapper. They Joined the Beas Project on various dates from 28-9-1972 to some time in the year 1973. The Project became the venture of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan after the reorganisation of these States. The State of Rajasthan bears the burden of allowances of their employees appointed in this Project.
3. The State Government by order dated 26-8-1970 directed payment of the Beas Project Compensatory Allowance at the. rate of 20% of the pay drawn subject to a maximum of 300/- rupees per month to the employees of the State of Rajasthan working on the Project. The rate was reduced to 14% in 1978, 12% in 1984 and further to 8% in 1987.
4. The unified scale of pay was introduced with effect from 1-10-1972 on the basis of the resolution passed by the Standing Committee of the Beas Construction Board on 14-9-1972. The Beat Construction Board also sanctioned cash payment equal to half a months pay for every completed year of satisfactory service on the Beas Project to all regular employees working on the Beas Project whether drawn from Partners States/ Electricity Boards. By the proceedings dt. 8-2-1973, in the case of the employees drawn from Rajasthan who had joined the Beas Project on or before 14-9-1972, the employees were in given the option of either to have the Beas Project Compensatory Allowance sanctioned by the Rajasthan Government or to avail of the benefit of cash payment. In the case of the former, the payment was to be arranged by the Rajasthan Government directly to the employees. The employees drawn from Rajasthan who had joined the Beas Project on or before 14-9-1972 and who opted to have the Beas Project Compensatory Allowance as sanctioned by the Rajasthan Government at their cost the amount of cash payment that would have become due was to be credited by the Beas Construction Board to the Rajasthan Government.
5. It appears that after the unified payscale was made applicable by the Beas Construction Board and the benefit of cash payment was also introduced, the Rajasthan Government by proceedings dated 9-2-1976 ordered that the concession of Beas Project Compensatory Allowance in terms of the order dated 26-8-1970 will not be applicable to the officers/ officials of the Irrigation Department and the Rajasthan State Electricity Board who joined the Beas Project after 14-9-1972. In the Memo dated 6-12-1978, it was clarified that the circular was issued in supersession of the earlier circular dated, 26-8-1970 that the Beas Project Compensatory Allowance is admissible to those employees who joined the Beas Project up to14-9-1972 as per decision of the Beas Construction Board and the same is not admissible to the employees of the Rajasthan State/ Rajasthan State Electricity Board who joined the Beas Project after that date.
6. The respondents herein challenged these proceedings dated 9-2-1976 and 6-12-1978 by filing writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and by the impugned order, the Tribunal quashed the same holding that these orders are discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held the view that the denial of the said allowance in respect of those employees who joined the Project after 14-9-1972 is against the principles of natural justice and that there is no change in the circumstances and t