Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 172 of 1972 dated May 28, 1993. The respondent, an association of Group C Inspectors of Customs and Central Excise under the Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong, along with its president and general secretary, claimed Special Duty Allowance under Office Memorandum No. 20014/2/83-E.IV dated December 14, 1983 and Office Memorandum No. 20014/16/86.IV/E.II(13) dated December 1, 1988. The association argued that its members had all India transfer liability under the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group C Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979, and that three members had been transferred, including one posted to Goa, making them eligible. The Union of India opposed the claim, contending that an office memorandum dated April 20, 1987 clarified that Special Duty Allowance was payable only to those Group C incumbents who had all India transfer liability as defined in the original OM dated March 14, 1983; that the conditions in the Recruitment Rules could not be used to saddle members with all India transfer liability; and that mere clauses stipulating all India transfer liability did not confer eligibility. The Tribunal, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, allowed the application and directed payment within 90 days and release of current allowance from June 1993. The central legal issue was whether employees belonging to the North-Eastern Region itself, recruited and posted there, were entitled to Special Duty Allowance under the relevant OMs. The Supreme Court examined the opening paragraph of the OM dated December 14, 1983, which stated that the allowance was meant for 'attracting and retaining' competent officers for service in the North-Eastern Region. The Court observed that these words indicated the benefit was intended for officers from other parts of the country, not those belonging to the region. It noted the difficult geographical, climatic, living and food conditions of the North-Eastern Region, which the Government sought to address by providing extra allowances to attract officers from outside for tenure postings of two to three years. The Court also referred to its earlier decisions in Chief General Manager (Telecom) v. S. Rajender C.H. Bhattacharjee & Ors., JT 1995 (1) SC 440 and Union of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar & Ors., JT 1994 (6) 443, which had taken the same view. The appellants' submission that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the true meaning of 'all India transfer liability' was accepted; the Court emphasized that the purpose of the allowance, not the existence of transfer liability alone, was determinative. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the application for Special Duty Allowance was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Special Duty Allowance - Eligibility of Employees Belonging to North-Eastern Region - Office Memorandum No. 20014/2/83-E.IV dated December 14, 1983 - The respondents, Group C Inspectors of Customs and Central Excise under Shillong Collectorate, claimed Special Duty Allowance on the basis of all India transfer liability under Recruitment Rules 1979. The Supreme Court held that the Office Memorandum was intended to attract and retain officers from outside the North-Eastern Region and not persons belonging to that region; the phrase 'attracting and retaining' indicated the benefit was for outsiders. The Tribunal's contrary view was set aside and the application dismissed. Held that regional employees are not entitled to Special Duty Allowance (Paras 6-9). B) Service Law - All India Transfer Liability - Relevance to Special Duty Allowance - Office Memorandum No. 20014/3/83.E/IV dated April 20, 1987 - The appellants contended that mere clauses in Recruitment Rules stipulating all India transfer liability do not make employees eligible for Special Duty Allowance; the determining test is the purpose and intention of the Office Memorandum rather than transfer liability alone. The Supreme Court agreed that all India transfer liability cannot be the basis for entitlement when the Office Memorandum's objective is to attract outsiders. Reliance on Full Bench Calcutta and Recruitment Rules was erroneous. Held that all India transfer liability does not confer eligibility for Special Duty Allowance (Paras 4-6, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Group C Inspectors of Customs and Central Excise under the Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong, belonging to the North-Eastern Region, are entitled to Special Duty Allowance under Office Memorandum No. 20014/2/83-E.IV dated December 14, 1983 and Office Memorandum No. 20014/16/86.IV/E.II(13) dated December 1, 1988
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the Tribunal set aside; application filed by respondents before Tribunal for grant of Special Duty Allowance dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Special Duty Allowance under Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 is meant to attract and retain officers from outside the North-Eastern Region
- employees belonging to the region are not entitled
- all India transfer liability in Recruitment Rules does not confer eligibility
- purpose and intention of the Office Memorandum is determinative
- 'attracting and retaining' refers to competent officers from other parts of the country
