Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
Mr. Samir Chandra Kar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 365 of 2014
Decided On : 15-09-2017
Compensatory Allowance - Non-combatant employees of Assam Rifles - Assam Rifles Act, 1941/2006, Central Civil Service (Revised pay) Rules, 2008 - Special Compensatory (remote locality) Allowance, Special (Duty) Allowance, Risk/Hardship Allowance - The judgment discusses the entitlement of non-combatant employees of Assam Rifles to higher rates of Compensatory Allowance at par with their combatant counterparts. It highlights the provisions of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941/2006, Central Civil Service (Revised pay) Rules, 2008, and the Government of India orders sanctioning various Compensatory Allowances. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the nature of duties, risk, and hardship faced by combatant and non-combatant personnel, as well as the conscious decision of the Government to grant risk/hardship allowance to combatised personnel only.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, non-combatant employees of Assam Rifles, sought higher rates of Compensatory Allowance at par with their combatant counterparts. The representations of the petitioners were rejected by the respondents, leading to the filing of the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-combatant employees are not entitled to the risk/hardship allowance as per the Government orders, as the nature of their duties and the risk faced are not at par with the combatant employees. The court upheld the conscious decision of the Government to grant risk/hardship allowance to combatised personnel only.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of non-combatant employees to higher rates of Compensatory Allowance at par with their combatant counterparts, and the rejection of their representations by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the nature of duties, risk, and hardship faced by combatant and non-combatant personnel, as well as the conscious decision of the Government to grant risk/hardship allowance to combatised personnel only.
Final Decision: The present petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
The petitioners, by way of these three writ petitions, seek directions to the respondents to grant higher rate of Compensatory allowance/Detachment allowance/Risk/(Hardship) allowance at par with their combatant counterparts like School Teacher/Staff Nurse/Sister/ANM/VFA/Ministerial Staff etc.
2. All the petitioners are, admittedly, non-combatant employees of the respondent, Assam Rifles. All the three petitions involve identical question of law and, therefore, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from WP(C) No. 365 of 2014. The petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 12th August, 2014 passed by the Director, Police Finance Wing and order dated 14th August, 2014 passed by the Lt. Colonel (Administration) whereby the representations of the petitioners were rejected.
4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as enumerated in the writ petition are that the petitioners are non-combatant employees of Assam Rifles.
5. It is stated by the petitioners that as per the Restructuring Peace Establishment of Assam Rifles, 2003, total number of Assam Rifles are 46 Battalion which include 31 old Battalions and 15 newly approved Battalions. The strength of one Battalion of Assam Rifles is 1250 personnel and the petitioners are within these 1250 personnel of Assam Rifles.
6. The petitioners have stated that they are within these 1250 personnel of the Battalion and they are physically present in the Battalion strength and therefore, they are the member, part and parcel of the force.
7. It is also stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide order No. 11011/1/84-FP-IV, dated 2nd February, 1989 sanctioned two Compensatory Allowances i.e Special Compensatory (remote locality) Allowance and Special (Duty) Allowance to all Assam Rifles Personnel (both combatant and non-combatant) w.e.f. 7th November, 1988 for serving in difficult area/border area of North Eastern Region without any discrimination.
8. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, vide resolution dated 29th August, 2008 had accepted the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission relating to structure of emoluments, allowances, conditions of service and retirement benefits in respect of the civilian employees of Central Government in Groups A, B, C and D. The Central Armed Personnel are also governed by Central Civil Service (Revised pay) Rules, 2008, as well as the purpose of granting various Compensatory Allowance for serving in specific areas at par with the same terms and conditions of combatant and non-combatant personnel. It is stated that all Assam Rifles Personnel up to the rank of Commandant deployed in difficult areas/counter insurgency operational areas in Assam Rifles Battalion were allowed to draw the higher rate of Compensatory Allowance (Risk/Hardship Allowance) as applicable to defence service personnel in the same areas.
9. The petitioners further stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Police Finance Wing) vide Office Memorandum dated 16th April, 2009 sanctioned a new Compensatory Allowance to all Central Armed Police Forces Personnel by withdrawing one of the Special Compensatory Allowance from the earlier order dated 2nd February, 1989. The petitioners stated that surprisingly Special Compensatory Allowance was withdrawn from combatant personnel only after granting another set of higher Compensatory Allowance to them and non-combatant employees working in the same Assam Rifles Battalion were allowed to continue Special Compensatory Allowance being lower rate of Compensatory Allowance.
10. It is further stated that no amendment was carried out in the Office Memorandum dated 2nd February, 1989 while withdrawing Special Compensatory Allowance from the combatant personnel. The petitioners stated that it was deliberately done so that the petitioners could not
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
