Back
1998 Supreme(Gau) 68
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
A.K.Patnaik, D.N.Chowdhury, JJ.
Dhiresh Chandra Dutta : Tripura Sharmik Sikshak Karmachari Morcha and Another -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule Nos and 44 of 1997
Decided On : 10-03-1998
S.Chakraborty, A.L.Saha, A.Ghosh, A.Chakraborty
The grant of DA/ADA is a matter of grace and not a matter of right, and therefore, a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State Government to pay DA/ADA at any particular rate. The recommendations of the Finance Commission are not binding on the State Government and the State Government is not duty-bound to implement them.
Headnote:
TRIPURA GOVT EMPLOYEES' FEDERATION VS. STATE OF TRIPURA - ARTICLE 226 - ARTICLE 280 - RULE 44 OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES - TRIPURA GOVT SERVICE (REVISED PAY) RULES, 1982 - TRIPURA APPROPRIATION ACT, 1984 - A writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State Government to pay DA/ADA at any particular rate as the grant of DA is a matter of grace and not a matter of right. The recommendations of the Finance Commission are not binding on the State Government and the State Government is not duty-bound to implement them. The State Government has the discretion to decide the amount of DA/ADA to be paid to its employees based on its financial condition and other relevant factors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, representing Tripura Government employees, filed writ petitions seeking a writ of Mandamus to compel the State Government of Tripura to pay the entire amount of Rs. 112 crores to the State Government employees as Dearness Allowance (DA) and Additional Dearness Allowance (ADA) to neutralize the rise in the All India Consumer Price Index. The petitioners argued that the State Government had received the amount from the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission and that the State Government was duty-bound to disburse the same to its employees.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the grant of DA/ADA is a matter of grace and not a matter of right, and therefore, a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State Government to pay DA/ADA at any particular rate. The Court further held that the recommendations of the Finance Commission are not binding on the State Government and that the State Government is not duty-bound to implement them. The Court also noted that the State Government had already spent more on pay scales and DA of its employees than what was granted by the Finance Commission.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government is duty-bound to pay DA/ADA to its employees as recommended by the Finance Commission? 2. Whether the recommendations of the Finance Commission are binding on the State Government?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the grant of DA/ADA is a matter of grace and not a matter of right, and therefore, a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State Government to pay DA/ADA at any particular rate. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of MP vs. GC Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493, which held that Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules does not confer any right on the Government servants to the grant of DA nor does it impose any duty on the State to grant it. 2. The Court held that the recommendations of the Finance Commission are not binding on the State Government and that the State Government is not duty-bound to implement them. The Court noted that Article 280 of the Constitution only requires the Finance Commission to make recommendations to the President regarding the distribution of taxes and grants-in-aid between the Union and the States, and that the State Government has the discretion to decide how to allocate its resources.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief.
The petitioner in Civil Rule No.43 of 1987 is the President of Tripura Mahakaran Karmachari Samity which is an Association looking after the welfare of the employees serving under the Govt of Tripura. The petitioner No. 1 in Civil Rule No.44 of 1987 is Tripura Shramik Sikshak Karmachari Samity, an Association of employees working under the Govt of Tripura and other authorities and aided institutions in the State of Tripura and the petitioner No.2 in the said civil rule is the General Secretary of the said Association.
2. In these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for, inter alia, a writ of Mandamus on the State Govt of Tripura to pay the entire amount of Rs.112 crores to the State Govt employees as Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance (hereinafter referred to as DA and ADA respectively) to neutralise the 120 points from 400 to 520 points rise in the All India Consumer Price Index and for a writ of Prohibition restraining the State Govt of Tripura from diverting the aforesaid amount of Rs.112 crores for any other purpose.
3. The relevant facts briefly are that on the recommendation of the First Tripura Pay Commission, the pay scales of the employees working under the Govt of Tripura were revised with effect from 1.3.74 and the said revised pay scales were linked to 220 point of Labour Bureau's Consumers Price Index (Tripura Base 1961=100) which was treated as Local Price Index. Thereafter, the Second Pay Commission was set up by the State of Tripura in the year 1979 and the said Commission submitted its report in December, 1981. The Govt accepted the scales of pay recommended by the said Pay Commission and framed the Tripura Govt Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982, which came into force with effect from 1st January, 1982. Thereafter, by a memorandum dated 23rd December, 1982, of the Govt of Tripura, Finance Department DA/ADA at central rates to all categories of employees of the Govt of Tripura for all instalments sanctioned by the Govt of India upto 1.12.81 was granted subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, by another memorandum dated 9th April, 1984 of the Govt of Tripura in the Finance Department, the State Govt employees were granted DA/ADA with effect from 1.3.84 provisionally pending final recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission. In the said memorandum dated 9th April, 1984, it was stated that the DA/ADA would be subject to review/adjustment on the basis of the recommendations of the Eighth Finance Commission in regard to (a) benefits derived from revised pay scales, and (b) DA/ADA granted under the memorandum. The Eighth Finance Commission constituted by the President of India under Article 280 of the Constitution submitted its interim and final reports. In the interim report, the Eighth Finance Commission made provisions in the forecasts of different States including Tripura for all the instalments of ADA which had been sanctioned by the Centre upto index number 496 in the All India Consumer Price Index for industrial workers (Base 1960=100) and for such purpose recommended an amount of Rs.53.34 crores to be granted as grant-in-aid to the State of Tripura for the financial year 1984-85 as the revenue deficit assessed by it. In its final report, the Eighth Finance Commission made provisions for emoluments of Govt employees of different States including Tripura during the five years ending 1988-89 which were in addition to the normal requirements projected during the forecast period and so far as the State of Tripura was concerned, the additional provisions made by the said Commission for emoluments for five years fo the forecast period 1985-85 to 1988-89 as given in Table : 1 at page 24 of the report were to the following effect: Name of the For DA upto To make up the Total For DA Consequent Total
State 12 monthly difference with (2=3) on increase in the 12 4+5 CPI average reference to the monthl
