SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Deepak Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2000 of 2011
Decided On : 15-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Mrs. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj and Mr. Maria Mukesh Khannan H., Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Pinky Pawar and Mr. Aakash Pathak, Advocates for UOI with SI Shrabanta Sarkar, SSB/Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the entitlement to Risk/Hardship Allowance is determined based on the option for existing compensatory allowances and detachment allowance, as clarified in the relevant circulars and judgments.

Headnote:

Risk/Hardship Allowance - Petition for Risk/Hardship Allowance - Circular dated 22.02.2011 and 25.02.2011 - 6th CPC, Government of India decision on August 29, 2008, memorandum dated November 21, 2009, OM dated April 16, 2009, OM dated February 23, 2011, Union of India & Ors. v. Sh. Sarvendra Singh Chauhan & Ors. - The court discussed the interpretation of Risk/Hardship Allowance, Compensatory Allowances, and Detachment Allowance as per the mentioned circulars and judgments, and how the petitioner's entitlement to Risk/Hardship Allowance was determined based on existing packages of compensatory allowances and detachment allowance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, serving in an extremist area, filed a petition to quash an impugned circular and declare the action of the respondents in not releasing Risk/Hardship Allowances as illegal. The petitioner claimed entitlement to Risk/Hardship Allowance based on various government decisions and memorandums.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's plea for entitlement to Risk/Hardship Allowance was not acceptable as the circular dated April 16, 2009, made it clear that CPMF personnel shall have the option to receive their existing package of Compensatory Allowance and Detachment Allowance or the Risk/Hardship allowance, whichever is beneficial to them.

Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement to Risk/Hardship Allowance in lieu of existing compensatory allowances and detachment allowance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Sh. Sarvendra Singh Chauhan & Ors. to determine that the petitioner's plea for entitlement to both existing compensatory allowances and Risk/Hardship Allowance was not acceptable.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as being without merit, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"i) To quash and set aside the impugned circular dated 22.02.2011 (P-1) and 25.02.2011.

ii) To declare the action of the respondents in not releasing Risk/Hardship Allowances to the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional.

iii) To issue Writ of Mandamus to the respondents for releasing the Risk/Hardship Allowances to the petitioner with 24% penal interest from March 2010.

iv) To allow the WP (C) with cost

v) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the above case."

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is serving in the extremist area of Dantewada, Chhattisgarh and has been deprived of Risk/Hardship Allowance as given to other Para-Military persons as well as to the Army. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the recommendation of the 6th CPC, the Government of India took decision on August 29, 2008, for giving Risk/Hardship Allowance to combatise Central Para-Military Forces (`CPMF', for short) Personnel posted in Anti-Naxal Operation in Left Wing Extremist Affected Areas (LWE). The said allowances were to be given in lieu of Compensatory Allowances and Detachment Allowances. The case of the petitioner is also that the respondents issued memorandum dated November 21, 2009, making it clear that the personnel posted in North Eastern Region presently attached at Force Headquarter or else whereon temporary duty will be treated on tour/temporary duty and as such entitled to pay and allowances as admissible in North East Region for the entire period of attachment. It is his case that as the petitioner was not granted the aforesaid allowances inspite of being posted in LWE Area of Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, he submitted a representation to the respondents, requesting them to allow him as well as other Battalion personnel of 41st Bn. deployed at LWE area, Dantewada, LWE allowances as admissible to Army as per letter dated April 16, 2009. The respondents have contested the writ petition by stating that the Ministry of Home Affairs has introduce Risk/Hardship allowance for CPMF personnel who are deployed in area affected by LWE vide OM dated April 16, 2009 subject to the following conditions:

i. The Risk/Hardship Allowance proposed shall be admissible to combatised CPMF personnel. The terms and conditions governing allowances paid to Army personnel shall also apply to CPMF personnel.

ii. The CPMF personnel shall have an option to receive their existing package of Compensatory Allowances and Detachment Allowance or Risk/Hardship Allowance whichever is beneficial to them.

3. According to them, the petitioner belongs to 41 Bn. of SSB with Headquarter at Sonapur, Guwahati and deployed at Dantewada, Chhattisgarh in 2010 and is presently posted at 24th Bn., SSB Rangia. The Compensatory package that the petitioner was entitled to during his posting in North-East was:

(a) Special Duty Allowance (SDA).

(b) Detachment Allowance.

(c) Special Compensatory Allowance (SCA).

4. Since, the deployment of the petitioner was in area affected by LWE so he is entitled to draw Risk/Hardship allowance as alternative compensatory package as per Government of India order dated April 16, 2009. The petitioner enjoys the liberty to opt for either of the packages which is beneficial to him. The Petitioner opted for LWE allowance package, i.e., Risk/Hardship allowance. According to the respondents as contended by Ms. Arunima Dwivedi the petitioner's plea is that he has opted for LWE package in lieu of TA/DA which is his self-benefit interpretation and contrary to existing instructions of MHA.

5. The MHA vide OM dated February 23, 2011, has clarified that Special Compensatory and Detachment Allowances would not be admissible to those personnel who opts for LWE/Risk/Hardship Allowances and SDA is very much part of compensatory package as referred to in MHA circular dated April 16, 2009. She also state

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top