Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Basant Kumar Bihani, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 1st August 2013 passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing Original Application No. 98 of 2011. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 22nd August 2014 dismissing the review application. The dispute arose from an order dated 4th September 1995 by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, which revised the rate of Foreign Allowance for employees working on deputation under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation Programme (ITEC) in Maldives. The revision reduced the allowance from Rs. 50,340/- (payable to Second Secretary level officers in the Indian Mission) to Rs. 40,845/- for deputationists drawing pay above Rs. 3,000/- per month. The petitioner contended that the reduction was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it created disparity between ITEC deputationists and Second Secretary level officers. The respondent, Union of India, argued that the revision was a policy decision based on administrative and financial considerations. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner in person and the counsel for the respondent, held that the revision of foreign allowance was a policy decision of the government and not subject to judicial review unless it was arbitrary, irrational, or violative of fundamental rights. The court found no such infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Foreign Allowance - Revision of Allowance - Policy Decision - The petitioner challenged the reduction of foreign allowance for ITEC deputationists in Maldives from Rs. 50,340/- to Rs. 40,845/-. The court held that the revision was a policy decision based on administrative considerations and not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary or mala fide. The CAT's dismissal of the OA was upheld. (Paras 2-4) B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Policy Decision - The court reiterated that courts cannot interfere with policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or violate fundamental rights. The revision of foreign allowance was a matter of executive policy. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision of foreign allowance for ITEC deputationists from Rs. 50,340/- to Rs. 40,845/- was arbitrary and discriminatory, and whether the CAT erred in dismissing the Original Application.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The impugned orders of the CAT dated 1st August 2013 and 22nd August 2014 are upheld.
Law Points
- Judicial review of policy decisions
- Foreign allowance revision
- Parity in pay scales
- Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction
