Denial of Transport Allowance to CISF personnel at Cochin Port Trust constituted hostile discrimination in violation of constitutional equality principles.

1. The respondents in W.P(C) No.17061/21 and W.P(C) No.16755/21 are the appellants respectively in the afore - captioned writ appeals. Both these writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 29.09.2021, which allowed the writ petitions. The said judgment is under challenge in these appeals. The issue which was agitated before the Tribunal pertains to non grant of Transport Allowance to the petitioners, who are the CISF personnel posted at CISF Unit, Cochin Port Trust. There are as many as 103 petitioners in WP.(C)No.16755/2i and a single petitioner in W.P.(C)No.17061/21. Transport Allowance was denied on the premise that the petitioners were provided with Government transport facility to commute from the assembly point (quarter guard) to the place of duty and vise - versa. Whereas, the same was claimed by the petitioners in the writ petitions, on the premise that they have to commute from their place of residence to the Unit Armory, from where only they are provided armed transport to vantage points. Similarly, after the duty hours, they are only taken back upto the Unit Armory, from where they have to proceed to their place of residence in their private vehicle. The petitioners also contended that, stipulation in Ext.P1 Office Memorandum dated 03.10.1997, which restricted Transport Allowance to those employees who are provided with Government accommodation within a distance of 1 km or within campus housing the place of work and residence, was done away with by Ext.P2 Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2008 issued pursuant to the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation. Therefore, irrespective of the distance between the place of residence and irrespective of the fact whether an accommodation has been provided in a campus housing the place of work and residence, the employees are entitled to Transport Allowance, was the claim espoused. The Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned judgment, found that the Government transport facility is provided to the petitioners only to cover a part of their journey, for reason of which, they cannot be deprived Transport Allowance. It was found that the petitioners cannot be expected to expend from their pocket for commuting from their place of residence to the assembly point and vise - versa. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed directing the respondents to grant Transport Allowance to the petitioners and to disburse the arrears in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. Heard Sri. K.S.Prenjith, learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of the appellants and Sri. T. Sanjay, learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.

3. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, as per Clause 2 (ii) of Ext.P2 OM, Transport Allowance is not available to those Officers, who have been provided with Government transport facility, which is admittedly provided to the petitioners in the writ petition. Secondly, it was contended that, the distance from their place of residence up to the assembly point - from where transport facility is provided upto the place of duty and vice - versa - is only less than 300 meters, for which reason, it cannot be contended that the petitioners are not provided with Government transport facility. In this regard, the learned Counsel placed heavy reliance upon the judgment dated 24.01.2011, of the High Court of Delhi in Rajeev Kumar v. Union of India (W.P.(C)No.10331/2009).

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents herein (writ petitioners), primarily focused on the hostile discrimination meted out to the writ petitioners