In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directing the respondents for making the pay and allowances of the civil employees of the General Reserved Engineer Force, for short the GREF equal to that of Naib Subedar Clerk in the Army. 2. The petitioner was directly recruited in the GREF as Lower Division Assistant in 1964 and posted in Jammu and Kashmir. At present, he is serving in 434 Road Maintenance Platoon in Arunachal Pradesh. The GREF are deployed for construction of roads, bridges, airfields etc. in remote and strategic areas, such as, North Western, Northern, Western, North Eastern and Andaman and Nicober Islands. They are non-combatant but are given arms for their own security and for need in emergent situation. The force is drawn partly by deputation from Army and partly by direct recruitment. Directly recruited GREF personnel are governed by provisions of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time; but for purposes of discipline, they are subject to certain provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954 as laid down in SRO's 329 and 330 dated 23.9.1960. According to the petitioner, the Supreme Court by judgment dated 6.5.83 in Writ Petition No. 815 of 1980 has held that the GREF should be treated like Army and a disparity between the terms and conditions of service such as, salary, allowances, ration etc. should be removed. The petitioner, therefore, prays that in view of this judgment the reliefs prayed for may be granted to him. 3. Sri RP Duggal, an officer of Grade III of Border Road Development, New Delhi who deals with the matter, filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In this counter affidavit, the respondents did not dispute that the GREF are employed in border areas for construction of roads, bridges etc. They stated that the GREF are governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and some provisions of Army Act and Rules have been made applicable to them only for the purpose of maintaining discipline. They stated that pay and allowances of the petitioner are at par with the other Upper Division Clerks of Central Government. They also contended that pay and allowances of the petitioner cannot be made equal to that of Naib Subedar Clerk of the Army as Naib Subedar Clerks are governed by Army Regulations. They stated that pay and allowances of the petitioner are at par with the other Upper Division Clerks of Central Government. They also contended that pay and allowances of the petitioner cannot be made equal to that of Naib Subedar Clerk of the Army as Naib Subedar Clerks are governed by Army Regulations. Further they stated that as the petitioner is serving in Arunachal Pradesh, he would get special duty allowance of Rs. 250/- per month, and for this, the Ministry of Finance has taken up with the Government of India. They also stated that the GREF had to retire from service at 50 to 60 years whereas the Army personnel had to retire from 45 to 50 years. Hence, they prayed for dismissing the petition. 4. Mr. AS Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the duty performed by GREF is equally hard and difficult as that of the Army and therefore, there was no justification to discriminate the GREF in matters of service condition. In reply, Mr, Sk. Chand Mohammad learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel has stated that Naib Subedar of the Army are governed by Army Act and Rules for all purposes whereas the same is applied to incumbents like petitioner only for the purpose of discipline. He submitted that the case relied on behalf of the petitioner, ie a judgment dated 6.5.83 in Writ Petition No. 815 of 1980 does not support the case of the petitioner. 5. The decision in Writ Petition No. 815 of 1980 is reported in AIS 1983 SC 658 (M. Viswan vs. Union of India). There it was decided that disciplinary action could be taken against the personnel in GREF who are directly recruited in GREF could be tried by Court Martial in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Army Act, ! 950 and the Army Rules, 1954 as they are applicable to the members of the GREF in matters of discipline and that on being convicted they could be dismissed from service. The petitioner relies on side observation made in that decision which are as follows : "The members of the Unions represented by the applicants obviously fall within this category. It is their duty to follow or accompany the Armed personnel on active service, or in camp or on the march. The petitioner relies on side observation made in that decision which are as follows : "The members of the Unions represented by the applicants obviously fall within this category. It is their duty to follow or accompany the Armed personnel on active service, or in camp or on the march. Although they are non-combatants and are in some matters governed by the Civil Service Regulations yet they are integral to the Armed Forces. They answer the description of the 'members of the Armed Forces within the contemplation of Article 22'. Here also it is indisputable on the facts and circumstances mentioned above that the functions and duties of GREF are integrally connected with the operational plans and require­ments of the Armed Forces and the members of GREF are house the words of Sarkaria, J., 'integral to the Armed Forces." The other portion on which the petitioner relies on is observation made in paragraph 11 of the judgment which is as follows: "But, we may observe that in case it is found that the terms and conditions of service of officers and men in GREF directly recruited or taken on deputation are in any way less favourable than those of Army personnel appointed to the same or equivalent posts in GREF, the Central Government might well consider the advisability of taking steps for ensuring that the disparity, if any, between the terms and conditions of service such as, salary, allowances, rations etc. of Army personnel posted in GREF units and other officers and men in GREF is removed." In the instant case, Mr. Sk. Chand Mohammad has shown that incumbents like the petitioner are governed by CCS (CCA) Rules and their service condition and pay and allowances are at par with Upper Division Clerks of the Central Government and as the petitioner is serving in Arunachal Pradesh he would be entitled to get special duty allowance of Rs. 250/- per month. It is not the case of the petitioner that the condition of service of the civil employees of the Defence establishment who are non-combatant but governed by Army Act and Army Rules for the purpose of discipline have been made equal to the Armed Forces with respect to the service condition such as leave, pay etc. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be held entitled to be treated as equal to Naib Subedar in matters of pay and allowances etc. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be held entitled to be treated as equal to Naib Subedar in matters of pay and allowances etc. His reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 815 of 1980 appears to be misconceived. 6. In the result, the petition has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed. I make no order as to costs.