Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the entitlement of Central Government civilian employees to a special duty allowance for serving in the North-Eastern Region. The Union of India challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal ruling that resident employees of the region holding posts with All India Transfer Liability were entitled to the allowance. The respondents, represented by Dr. Ghosh, contended that the office memorandum dated 14.12.1983 made the allowance payable solely based on All India Transfer Liability and that denying it to residents while granting it to outsiders violated equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The office memorandum dated 14.12.1983 dealt with allowances and facilities for Central Government civilian employees serving in the North-Eastern Region and mentioned that the allowance was payable if posts carried All India Transfer Liability. The Tribunal interpreted this in favor of resident employees. The Union relied on subsequent office memoranda dated 29.10.1986 and 20.4.1987 to contend that the allowance was meant only for employees posted from outside the region. The 1987 memorandum expressly stated that the allowance would not become payable merely because of an All India Transfer Liability clause in the appointment order. The legal issues were whether the allowance was payable to residents solely on the basis of All India Transfer Liability and whether denial to residents violated equal pay and Articles 14 and 16. Dr. Ghosh argued that the 1983 memorandum did not exclude residents and a rider could not be added based on the later memorandum, and that denial was discriminatory. Additional Solicitor General Shri Tulsi argued that the memoranda read together showed the allowance was intended to attract and retain officers from outside due to difficult terrain, that the 1987 clarification removed any ambiguity, and that denial was justified under precedent. The Supreme Court agreed with the Union. It found that the 1983 memorandum, read with the 1986 and 1987 memoranda, clearly indicated that the allowance was meant to attract and retain officers from outside the North-Eastern Region due to inaccessibility and difficult terrain. The 1983 memorandum itself mentioned the need for "attracting and retaining" competent officers. The 1986 memorandum stated that Central Government civilian employees with All India Transfer Liability would be granted the allowance "on posting to any station to the North Eastern Region". The 1987 memorandum clarified that a mere All India Transfer Liability clause did not make the allowance payable. On equal pay, the Court relied on Reserve Bank of India v. Reserve Bank of India Staff Officers Association, [1991] 4 SCC 132, where granting remote locality allowance only to transferred officers was upheld as not violative of Article 14. The appeals were allowed, the Tribunal's judgments were set aside, and it was held that respondents were not entitled to the allowance. However, the Court accepted the Additional Solicitor General's fair stand that amounts already paid to respondents or similarly situated employees would not be recovered, and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Special Duty Allowance - Eligibility of Resident Employees - Office Memoranda dated 14.12.1983, 29.10.1986 and 20.4.1987 - The allowance was intended to attract and retain officers from outside the North-Eastern Region due to inaccessibility and difficult terrain, not to benefit local residents. The 1983 memorandum's mention of "All India Transfer Liability" was clarified by the 1986 memorandum stating that the allowance is granted "on posting to any station to the North Eastern Region", and the 1987 memorandum expressly stating that the allowance would not become payable merely because of an All India Transfer Liability clause in the appointment order. Held that residents of the region holding posts with such a clause are not entitled to the allowance (Paras 2-4, 6). B) Constitutional Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India - Denial of special compensatory allowance to local residents while granting it to employees transferred from outside the region does not violate the equal pay doctrine. Following Reserve Bank of India v. Reserve Bank of India Staff Officers Association, [1991] 4 SCC 132, where a similar remote locality allowance was upheld as not violative of Article 14. Held that the differential is based on the purpose of the allowance to compensate for displacement and difficult conditions faced by outsiders (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Central Government employees who are residents of the North-Eastern Region are entitled to special duty allowance solely because their posts carry All India Transfer Liability, or whether the allowance is limited to employees posted from outside the region.
Final Decision
The appeals by the Union of India were allowed; the impugned judgments of the Tribunal were set aside; it was held that respondents were not entitled to the special duty allowance. However, amounts already paid to respondents or similarly situated employees would not be recovered. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Special duty allowance is meant to attract and retain officers from outside North-Eastern Region
- office memoranda dated 14.12.1983
- 29.10.1986 and 20.4.1987 must be read together
- allowance not payable merely because of All India Transfer Liability clause in appointment order
- denial to residents does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution
- equal pay for equal work not violated by compensatory allowance to transferred employees
- no recovery of already paid allowance.
