Back
1966 Supreme(P&H) 239
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Narula, J.
S.Rajinder Pal Singh
Versus
Union Of India Through The Accountant General, Punjab
Civil Writ No. 1936 of 1965,
Decided On : DECEMBER 8, 1966
Concessions granted by the Central Government to employees whose headquarters are shifted as a result of government policy are not statutory rules enforceable by writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES - CONCESSIONS - HEADQUARTERS SHIFTING - LEGAL RIGHT - DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 16 - FUNDAMENTAL RULES - SUPPLEMENTARY RULES - OFFICE MEMORANDUM - PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION - STATUTORY RULE - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY: - Central Government memorandum granting concessions to employees whose headquarters are shifted as a result of government policy does not confer any legal right enforceable by writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. - The concessions are not statutory rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as they were not framed by the President as service rules but were merely financial sanctions for incurring extra expenditure. - Relaxation of time limit for claiming traveling allowance under Supplementary Rule 116(b)(iii) was made in exercise of powers conferred by the rule itself and not in derogation or supersession of it. - Incorporation of part of the memorandum into Fundamental Rules does not make the entire memorandum a statutory rule, and the concession of compensatory allowance was not incorporated into any rule. - Compensatory allowance is granted under Fundamental Rule 44 and is a matter of grace, not a right, and claims for its payment are not justiciable. - Shifting of two departments of the Accountant General's office from Simla to Chandigarh was not in pursuance of a policy to relieve pressure on office accommodation and was not "unusual and unforeseen in character" as required by the Central Government memorandum. - Petitioners' claim for compensatory allowance is not within the four corners of the memorandum and was rightly denied by the Central Government. - Alleged discrimination between petitioners and employees of other offices is not established and Article 14 of the Constitution does not apply as the concessions are not "law" within the meaning of the Article. - Article 16(1) is not applicable as the claim does not relate to employment, appointment, or office under the State. - Writ petition is dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, employees of the Accountant General's office in Chandigarh, claimed special compensatory allowance for one year under a Central Government memorandum granting concessions to employees whose headquarters are shifted as a result of government policy. They argued that the shifting of two departments of their office from Simla to Chandigarh fell within the ambit of the memorandum and that the allowance was a statutory right enforceable by writ petition. The respondents contended that the petitioners' headquarters had not been shifted and that the concessions were not available to them as the move was not in pursuance of government policy but was primarily due to the petitioners' request for transfer and the need to vacate residential accommodation in Simla.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the concessions granted by the Central Government memorandum were not statutory rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as they were not framed by the President as service rules but were merely financial sanctions for incurring extra expenditure. The court also held that the relaxation of time limit for claiming traveling allowance under Supplementary Rule 116(b)(iii) was made in exercise of powers conferred by the rule itself and not in derogation or supersession of it. The court further held that the shifting of two departments of the Accountant General's office from Simla to Chandigarh was not in pursuance of a policy to relieve pressure on office accommodation and was not "unusual and unforeseen in character" as required by the Central Government memorandum. Therefore, the petitioners' claim for compensatory allowance was not within the four corners of the memorandum and was rightly denied by the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the Central Government memorandum granting concessions to employees whose headquarters are shifted as a result of government policy confers any legal right enforceable by writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the concessions are statutory rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the relaxation of time limit for claiming traveling allowance under Supplementary Rule 116(b)(iii) was made in exercise of powers conferred by the rule itself or in derogation or supersession of it? 4. Whether the shifting of two departments of the Accountant General's office from Simla to Chandigarh was in pursuance of a policy to relieve pressure on office accommodation and was "unusual and unforeseen in character" as required by the Central Government memorandum? 5. Whether the petitioners' claim for compensatory allowance is within the four corners of the memorandum? 6. Whether the alleged discrimination between petitioners and employees of other offices is established and whether Article 14 of the Constitution applies? 7. Whether Article 16(1) is applicable to the petitioners' claim?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The concessions granted by the Central Government memorandum are not statutory rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as they were not framed by the President as service rules but were merely financial sanctions for incurring extra expenditure. 2. The relaxation of time limit for claiming traveling allowance under Supplementary Rule 116(b)(iii) was made in exercise of powers conferred by the rule itself and not in derogation or supersession of it. 3. The shifting of two departments of the Accountant General's office from Simla to Chandigarh was not in pursuance of a policy to relieve pressure on office accommodation and was not "unusual and unforeseen in character" as required by the Central Government memorandum. 4. Therefore, the petitioners' claim for compensatory allowance is not within the four corners of the memorandum and was rightly denied by the Central Government.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
R.S.Narula, J.
1. Rajinder Pal Singh and 124 others, petitioners, are the employees of the office of the Accountant General Punjab, posted at Chandigarh The entire office of the said Accountant General used to he at Simla before 1964. On January 21, 1964, an office order (Annexure A) was issued by the Accountant General, desiring those officials of that office, who wished to be transferred to Chandigarh, to furnish their willingness to the Administration Section of the office by the 30th ot January 1964 as it was decided that a part of that office might be shifted to Chandigarh. It was made clear in the office order, which was circulated to all the sections in the office that Government will have no obligation either at that time or in the near future thereafter to provide any residential accommodation to the staff which might choose to go to Candigarh. On February 10, 1964, another office order (Annexure "AA") was issued by the office of the Accountant General intimating to the officials that it has been decided to shift the Outside Audit Department and the Works Audit Department wings of the office, which were till then located at Simla to Chandigarh, very shortly. It was added in the order that in consequence of this change, the Headquarters of these Wings will change to Chandigarh." All the persons who were at that time working in the Public Works Inspection Parties and Outside Audit Department Field Parties, were required to furnish their willingness or otherwise to the Administration Section of the office not later than February 18, 1964.
It was also mentioned in the order that in ease no option was received by the prescribed date, it would be presumed that the officials concerned were not willing to he sent out to Chandigarh. Reference was also made to the earlier office order, dated January 21, 1964 (Annexure A). It is the admitted case of both sides that all the petitioners expressed their willingness to be transferred to Chandigarh in pursuance of the abovesaid office orders. The petitioners have filed as Annexure "J" to the writ petition, a copy of the circular letter issued by the office of the Accountant General to all Public Works Divisional Officers of Punjab Stale and other concerned offices, on February 22, 1964 about the shifting of the Works Audit Department wing froms Simla to Candigarh.
2. On March 2, 1961, the petitioners submitted a representation (Annuxnre D) to the Accountant Genera) claiming special compensatory allowance in terms of the Central Governments letter, dated July 17, 1958 (Annexure "C ) for a period of one year as had been allowed to the officials of the Punjab and Himachal Pradesh Circle of the Geological Survey of India (Annexure F) at the time of the shifting of their office from Simla to Chandigarh in March, 1961 and to the staff of the Central Excise Department on the move of that office from Ambala to Chandigarh in 1961. A similar printed representation was later on submitted by the petitioners in 1965 (copy of Annexure E) to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
The special compensatory allowance was claimed for one year at 12 1/2 per cent of the pay admissible to the petitioners. Reference was made to the previous application submitted to the Accountant General, and it was stated that though the petitioners had waited for over a year, they had not received even a formal reply to their demand, and that it was only when they waited on the Accountant General on March 4, 1965, that they were informed of the demand having been rejected. Justification for the demand was sought to be made out in the representation. By letter, dated July 12, 1965 (Annexure R-3), the Deputy Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh, informed the petitioners that the matter regarding the grant of special compensatory allowance had been considered in consultation with the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and it had been decided that the request of the staff at Chandigarh for the grant o
