The court upheld the principle that matters of risk evaluation and allowances fall within the purview of administrative authority, limiting judicial review in such contexts.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

C.M. No. 25442/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8194/2021

3. The 9 Constables (General Duty (GD)) of the respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) posted at Raipur Airport, have filed this petition impugning the order dated 10th March, 2021 on the representation of the petitioners and seeking mandamus, (a) directing the respondents CISF to grant Risk and Hardship Allowance to the petitioners along with all consequential benefits; and, (b) to include the CISF unit at Raipur Airport, Chhattisgarh, in the list of units, to personnel posted wherein, Risk and Hardship Allowance is payable.

4. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. (C) 10608/2020, claiming the same relief and which writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 7th January, 2021, directing the respondents CISF to, by a speaking order, dispose of the representation earlier made by the petitioners for the same relief. The respondents CISF, in pursuance thereto, have passed the order dated 10th March, 2021, rejecting the representation of the petitioners, reasoning (i) that the representation had been examined in depth at CISF Headquarters, under ambit of relevant rules; (ii) that the circular dated 7th October, 2014 of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, relied upon by the petitioners only defined the consolidated list of normal, sensitive and hypersensitive Airports and had no relation with regard to grant of Risk and Hardship Allowance; (iii) that while accepting the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission qua payment of Risk and Hardship Allowance, the Government had directed that the field areas of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) be examined and classified by the Ministry of Home Affairs; (iv) that the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OM dated 22nd February, 2019 had constituted a Committee for classification of field areas for grant of Risk and Hardship Allowance to CAPFs; (v) that based on the recommendations of the Committee, the existing classification of field areas had been reviewed in respect of Jammu and Kashmir and Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected districts, where troops were deployed for Anti-Naxal Operations and sanction was conveyed for areas classification as per Annexure-1 to Annexure-11 vide OM dated 22nd February, 2019; and, (vi) that as per the said classification, the personnel posted at CISF unit at Raipur Airport were not entitled to Risk and Hardship Allowance.

5. We have drawn the attention of the counsel for the petitioners to the jurisprudence contained in (i) State of Karnataka Vs. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684, that the Courts should not interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the concerned administrative authority who are best equipped to assess and handle the situation; (ii) Suhaib Ilyasi Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1153/2002, that the security agencies are best equipped to evaluate the need for providing security to an individual who has been receiving threats; (iii) Ashwini Kumar Chopra Vs. Union of India, AIR 2011 Del 154 (DB), that the executive is in the best know of when and what sort of security cover be granted to a particular person; (iv) Shiv S. Sharma Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1024/2010; (v) Bycell Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 185 (2011) DLT 494 (DB); (vi) Parveen Kumar Beniwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, MANU/DE/1304/2015; (vii) Dalbir Malik Vs. GNCTD, 183 (2011) DLT 574; (viii) Voluptas Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/3782/2016; and, (ix) Judgment dated 5th August, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.4181/2020