R.P. Nos.4/2021 & 7/2021 in W.P.(C) No.4151/2015

Page 1 of 9

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 4151/2015

VIKRAM SINGH

……Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

……Respondents

Through:

Mr. Arun Bhardwaj and Mr. Nikhil

Bhardwaj, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

%

04.05.2021

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Review Petitions No.4/2021 & 7/2021 & CMs No.29861/2020 (of

respondents for early hearing), 746/2021 (of respondents for

condonation of 600 days delay in filing Review Petition No.4/2021

against order dated 10^th April, 2019), 747/2021 (of respondents for

taking on record additional documents) & 1178/2021 (of respondents

for condonation of 260 days delay in filing Review Petition No.7/2021

against order dated 13^th March, 2020)

1. CM No.29861/2020 is now infructuous and is disposed of.

2. For the reasons stated, the delays in filing the Review Petitions are

condoned and CMs No.746/2021 and 1178/2021 are disposed of.

3. CM No.747/2021 has been filed by the respondents/review petitioners

for taking additional documents on record and is being dealt with along with

the Review Petitions.

4. Review, in Review Petition No.4/2021, is sought by the respondents

2021:DHC:1498-DB

R.P. Nos.4/2021 & 7/2021 in W.P.(C) No.4151/2015

Page 2 of 9

of the judgment dated 10^th April, 2019 allowing W.P.(C) No.4151/2015.

Review, in Review Petition No.7/2021, in addition, is sought of the order

dated 13^th March, 2020, clarifying the judgment dated 10^th April, 2019,

allowing the writ petition.

5. From a reading of the judgment dated 10^th April, 2019, of which

review is sought, it is found that, (A) the petitioner, who was then posted as

a Second-In-Command (2IC) in the respondent Central Reserve Police Force

(CRPF), had filed the writ petition aforesaid seeking quashing of Office

Memorandum (OM) dated 7^th September, 1998 to the extent that it

authorized grant of Ration Money Allowance (RMA) to Central Para

Military Force (CPMF) personnel only if they are deployed alongside, ahead

of or under the operational control of the Army and are deployed in counter-

insurgency and anti-insurgency operations alongside the Army personnel, or

in border and/or disturbed areas, and seeking a direction to the respondents

Union of India and CRPF, to grant RMA to all personnel of CRPF up to the

rank of Commandant, irrespective of their place of posting or deployment;

(B) the stand of the respondents/review petitioners in opposition to the writ

petition was, that since the petitioner, while posted at Assam, which was a

disturbed area, was serving alongside the Army and opted to draw the

Detachment Allowance at full rates, he was not eligible for RMA; (C) this

Court reasoned that, (i) it was not in dispute that Gazetted Officers of Border

Security Force (BSF), in the rank of Inspectors, got RMA when they were

deployed at the Line of Control or border areas and were not drawing

regular Detachment Allowance, as was being drawn by the personnel of

CRPF; (ii) as per Rule 46(c) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, drawl of Detachment

2021:DHC:1498-DB

R.P. Nos.4/2021 & 7/2021 in W.P.(C) No.4151/2015

Page 3 of 9

Allowance has nothing to do with the place of posting or whether the said

force personnel was under the command of the Army or not or whether he

was posted in a particular area, operations etc.; (iii) the 6^th Central Pay

Commission, in its report had stated that dietary requirements of personnel

in CPMFs as well as the Military Forces were likely to be similar and had

recommended payment of RMA to CPMFs personnel at par with that

available to the Defence Forces; (iv) BSF had been paying RMA to all its

Officers up to the rank of Commandant, whether they are deployed in the

counter-insurgencies or