Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 54 (HP)

GURCHET SINGH RAJPUT v. UNION OF INDIA

2005-03-17

K.C.SOOD, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20.11.1997 (Annexure P-l) whereby and where under their Original Application No. 369-HP of 1996 seeking claim for the grant of Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance (herein after for short S.C.R.L.A.) was rejected. 2. The petitioners are employees of Railway Board working on different posts at Kandaghat, Shoghi and Solan in Himachal Pradesh. They filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking relief for the grant of S.C.R.L.A. Their Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 1.12.1995 on the sole ground of limitation. They filed S.L.R before the Honble Supreme Court against the said order which was allowed with the direction that the Tribunal should decide the claim of the petitioners on merits. The matter came up before the Central Administrative Tribunal for consideration on merits. 3. It was the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal that the employees of the Central Government posted at Shimla, Solan and Kasauli in District Solan were receiving, S.C.R.L.A. in terms of the instructions of the Central Government as well as the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal recorded on the petitions filed by the employees of the Central Government. In support of their claims, the petitioners have relied upon the relevant instructions of the Government of India dated 15.11.1985 and 27.4.1987 and earlier orders of the Tribunal. They claimed that they should not be discriminated for the grant of S.C.R.L.A. with other Central Government employees. 4. The claim of the petitioners was contested and resisted by the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to S.C.R.L.A. because they have been continuously getting Hill Compensatory Allowance (for short HCA) w.e.f. 1.10.1985. The respondents contended that the employees of the Railways is a separate class and governed by separate service rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal on examination of the material on record dismissed the Original Application No, 369-HP of 1996 filed by the petitioners and two more Original Applications filed by other similar situate employees of the Railway by common order dated 20.11.1997 which is impugned by the petitioners in this writ petition. 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal on examination of the material on record dismissed the Original Application No, 369-HP of 1996 filed by the petitioners and two more Original Applications filed by other similar situate employees of the Railway by common order dated 20.11.1997 which is impugned by the petitioners in this writ petition. The other employees have not challenged the said order. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on March 30, 1993. The parties have exchanged their pleadings. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended before us that respondent-Railway Board vide order dated October, 1995 mark Annexure P-3 has decided to grant S.C.R.L.A. to the petitioners at the rates applicable to the employees of the Central Government posted at Shimla, for the period 1.10.1985 to 30.5.1991 but the said decision was never implemented by the Railway Board. He also contended that the petitioners shall be treated at par with the employees of the Central Government for the grant of S.C.R.L.A. as they are performing the same and similar duties at the present place of posting i.e. at Solan. 7. We have examined the material on record to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel. The Tribunal in earlier O.A. No. 23/HP of 1993 filed by the petitioners directed the respondents to consider the matter of grant of S.C.R.L.A. to the Railway employees posted at other places in Himachal Pradesh and to finally decide the matter by a speaking order. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala vide order dated 28.2.1996, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P-4 has considered the claim of the petitioners in the light of the various earlier decisions of the Tribunal passed in favour of the employees of the Central Government who are posted in different places of the State of Himachal Pradesh and rejected the claim of the petitioners for the grant of S.C.R.L.A. The competent authority while considering the claim of the petitioners has taken into account all relevant factors like geographically location, availability of means of communication and transport, basic amenities and facilities, availability of essential consumer items and their cost etc. The rates of the allowances have been determined independently by the Central Government to its employees based on the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission. The rates of the allowances have been determined independently by the Central Government to its employees based on the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission. In case of Central Government employees posted in Himachal Pradesh, S.C.R.L.A. was initially sanctioned by the Ministry of Finance in 1,985. The classification pattern contained in O.M. dated 15.11.1985 was also based on the orders of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh. As per the orders of the State Government, Shimla was in Group-IV while other places like Hamirpur and Solan (except Mangal Panchayat area thereof) were in Group-VIII. The areas have all along been classified in a lower class as compared to Shimla by the State Government. However, while allowing S.C.R.LA. to the Central Government employees posted in Himachal Pradesh at the time of issue of the O.M. .dated 15.11.1985, the Ministry of Finance did not consider allowing S.C.R.L.A. to the Central Government employees posted in areas covered in Group-VIII of State Governments orders then in vogue for the reason that these places are easily approachable from the plains and as such are not considered difficult to reach. 8. The Government of Himachal Pradesh revised the classification of areas in August, 1987 whereunder Degshai, Solan and Hamirpur continued to be categorized lower than Shimla. Thus, the Ministry of Finance Government of India accordingly revised the orders regulating grant of S.C.R.L.A. to the Central Government employees posted in Himachal Pradesh vide their order dated 31.5.1991 adopting exactly the classification of the areas by the State Government. 9. Some of the employees of the Central Government had filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the grant of S.C.R.L.A. posted in different places in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Tribunal ordered the payment of S.C.R.L.A. to those employees at the rates as admissible to the employees posted at Shimla for the period 1.10.1986 to 30.5.1991. However, the Tribunal implicitly upheld the classification and validity of the O.M. dated 31.5.1991 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The Tribunal allowed the claim of those employees on the ground that they were not getting any S.C.R.L.A. at all. The stand of the respondent-Railway Board is that the Ministry of Railways follows and adopts the orders of Ministry of Finance in the matter of grant of such allowances. The Tribunal allowed the claim of those employees on the ground that they were not getting any S.C.R.L.A. at all. The stand of the respondent-Railway Board is that the Ministry of Railways follows and adopts the orders of Ministry of Finance in the matter of grant of such allowances. The Ministry of Railways issued orders of even number dated 3.2.1994 granting S.C.R.L.A. at the lowest slab of rates w.e.f. 1.10.1986 to 31.5.1991 to the Railway employees posted in such areas of Himachal Pradesh as had been completely left out in the earlier orders. Thus, the case of Railways employees would stand on different footing than that of the other Central Government employees as in the case of the Central Government employees, there was a complete negation of the allowance for the period 1.10.1986 to 30.5.1991 whereas the employees of the Railways have been granted the allowance, though at the rates lower than the rates granted to the employees posted at Shimla which is in conformity with classification pattern of the Government of Himachal Pradesh as also with the policy currently in force since 31.5.1991. The competent authority taking into consideration the entire prons and cons of the claim of the petitioners came to the conclusion that any further liberalization was not called for in the matter of S.C.R.L.A. to the employees of the Railways posted at Degshai, Solan, Hamirpur etc. 10. The petitioners have challenged the said order of the respondent-Railway Board before the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 369-HP of 1996. As noticed above, the Tribunal dismissed their Original Application. 11. On examination of the entire material on record, undisputedly, the employees serving under the Railways and those in the Central Government would form two separate and distinct categories. The employees of the Railways are governed by separate set of Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The budget allocated to the Railway is separate from the one allocated to the other Central Government departments. The budget of the Railway is also separately approved by the Parliament. The instructions issued by the Government of India do not ipso facto apply to the railways until and unless these are adopted by the Ministry of Railway/Railway Board. It is also undisputed fact that the employees serving under the Railway would get many privileges such as Free Train Pass, Running Allowance etc. The instructions issued by the Government of India do not ipso facto apply to the railways until and unless these are adopted by the Ministry of Railway/Railway Board. It is also undisputed fact that the employees serving under the Railway would get many privileges such as Free Train Pass, Running Allowance etc. which are not admissible to the employees of the Central Government in other departments. The Tribunal is right in holding that in case the plea of the petitioners in regard to the grant of S.C.R.L.A. at par with the employees of Central Government is accepted, that will certainly lead to bundle of anomalies inasmuch as the employees of the Central Government working in other departments would also agitate parity with the benefits which are being enjoined by the Railway employees in regard to the concessions/privileges admissible to them. The respondent-Railway Board in its reply has specifically pleaded that the Railway Administration is already paying Hilly Compensatory Allowance to their employees posted in the hill stations of Himachal Pradesh and this defence has not been disputed and controverted by the petitioners. The petitioners are only entitled to one benefit and once they are receiving H.C.A., they cannot be held entitled to the second benefit of S.C.R.L.A. at par with the employees of the Central Government. It is also clear from the pleadings of the parties that the instructions of the Government of India regarding S.C.R.L.A. as per letter dated 15.11.1985 and as amended subsequently have not been adopted by the Railway Department. The Tribunal has rightly concluded that the assessment and evaluation of any place for the grant of S.C.R.L.A. is the function of a duly constituted expert body and whether the employees of a particular department are entitled to the grant of such allowances or not is a matter for decision by the expert body and the Tribunal or the Court cannot substitute itself as a forum for expert body for this purpose. We do not find any good ground or sound reason to differ from the reasoning recorded and finding arrived at by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the grant of S.C.R.L.A Thus, in exercise of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from infirmity, perversity or illegality warranting interference. 12. 12. For the above said reason, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.