Point of Law: Jurisdiction to grant of relief to employees - Grant of relief in writ petition in general, to all members of CRPF and CPMFs who had not even petitioned and were not before Court and had not disclosed cause of action, thus was indeed in nature of, as Court is authorised to grant in a PIL, and matter requires to be reviewed.

ORDER :

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Review Petitions No.4/2021 & 7/2021 & CMs No.29861/2020 (of respondents for early hearing), 746/2021 (of respondents for condonation of 600 days delay in filing Review Petition No.4/2021 against order dated 10th April, 2019), 747/2021 (of respondents for taking on record additional documents) & 1178/2021 (of respondents for condonation of 260 days delay in filing Review Petition No.7/2021 against order dated 13th March, 2020)

1. CM No.29861/2020 is now infructuous and is disposed of.

2. For the reasons stated, the delays in filing the Review Petitions are condoned and CMs No.746/2021 and 1178/2021 are disposed of.

3. CM No.747/2021 has been filed by the respondents/review petitioners for taking additional documents on record and is being dealt with along with the Review Petitions.

4. Review, in Review Petition No.4/2021, is sought by the respondents of the judgment dated 10th April, 2019 allowing W.P.(C) No.4151/2015. Review, in Review Petition No.7/2021, in addition, is sought of the order dated 13th March, 2020, clarifying the judgment dated 10th April, 2019, allowing the writ petition.

5. From a reading of the judgment dated 10th April, 2019, of which review is sought, it is found that, (A) the petitioner, who was then posted as a Second-In-Command (2IC) in the respondent Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), had filed the writ petition aforesaid seeking quashing of Office Memorandum (OM) dated 7th September, 1998 to the extent that it authorized grant of Ration Money Allowance (RMA) to Central Para Military Force (CPMF) personnel only if they are deployed alongside, ahead of or under the operational control of the Army and are deployed in counterinsurgency and anti-insurgency operations alongside the Army personnel, or in border and/or disturbed areas, and seeking a direction to the respondents Union of India and CRPF, to grant RMA to all personnel of CRPF up to the rank of Commandant, irrespective of their place of posting or deployment;

(B) the stand of the respondents/review petitioners in opposition to the writ petition was, that since the petitioner, while posted at Assam, which was a disturbed area, was serving alongside the Army and opted to draw the Detachment Allowance at full rates, he was not eligible for RMA; (C) this Court reasoned that, (i) it was not in dispute that Gazetted Officers of Border Security Force (BSF), in the rank of Inspectors, got RMA when they were deployed at the Line of Control or border areas and were not drawing regular Detachment Allowance, as was being drawn by the personnel of CRPF; (ii) as per Rule 46(c) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, drawl of Detachment Allowance has nothing to do with the place of posting or whether the said force personnel was under the command of the Army or not or whether he was posted in a particular area, operations etc.; (iii) the 6th Central Pay Commission, in its report had stated that dietary requirements of personnel in CPMFs as well as the Military Forces were likely to be similar and had recommended payment of RMA to CPMFs personnel at par with that available to the Defence Forces; (iv) BSF had been paying RMA to all its Officers up to the rank of Commandant, whether they are deployed in the counter-insurgencies or anti-insurgency operations in Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland or Assam; (v) the OM dated 7th September, 1998 also did not make the payment of RMA conditional upon the CRPF personnel undertaking to give up the Detachment Allowance payable under Rule 46(c) of the CRPF Rules; (vi) Detachment Allowance was payable as reimbursement for the expenses incurred by the individual when travelling and being away from the Headquarters; (vii) the instructions that CRPF personnel must opt for either RMA or Detachment Allowance was contrary to Rule 46(c) of the CRPF Rules; (viii) Supreme Court in B. Rugmini Amma Vs. B.S. Nirmala Kumari (2013) 11 SCC 262 had held that administrative instructions could not override the statutory provisions; (ix) thu