Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1360 (PAT)

Poonam Kumari v. State of Bihar

2015-10-29

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 49 petitioners have joined together in this common writ application seeking quashing of letter dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure-4) since by this notification issued by the Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, the respondent authorities have decided to take away the benefit of special allowance which was 30 per cent of the basic pay. Since this notification creates discrimination within the force, petitioners want the said notification to be quashed. 2. Way back on 18/8/2000, the Government of Bihar issued Anneuxre-1 and created a Special Task Force (hereinafter to be referred as STF). This was a specially constituted organization in the police to fight the threat of Left Organization, Personal Army of Landlords, Organized Criminal Groups and criminal elements, who resorted to violence against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and women in the State of Bihar. 15 Companies were put in place and the posts sanctioned would be evident from reading of Anneuxre-1 or para 6 of the writ application. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court that due to the element of high risk involved in the duties and task assigned to the members of the STF, a conscious decision was taken by the Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, to grant benefit of special allowance to the extent of 30 per cent of the basic pay with maximum of Rs.1000/- to all the employees of the Task Force including Class III and IV except Accountants who were posted on deputation. Annexure-3 is the notification, which is dated 25.01.2008. The object and reason for extending such a privilege is indicated in the said notification itself. Allocation of fund was also made. 4. After issuance of notification, contained in Annexure-3, dated 25.1.2008, the employees continued to derive benefit without any let or hindrance for more than four years. But all of a sudden, by a unilateral decision the State Government decided to curtail the said benefit by issuing Anneuxre-4. It is not that the special allowance has been totally withdrawn across the board. The privilege still subsists except for the holders of 12 posts which includes the petitioners who have been taken out from the benefit conferred in terms of Annexure- 3. 5. Since most of the petitioners belong to the same category of employees, they have approached the Court for quashing of Anneuxre-4. 6. The privilege still subsists except for the holders of 12 posts which includes the petitioners who have been taken out from the benefit conferred in terms of Annexure- 3. 5. Since most of the petitioners belong to the same category of employees, they have approached the Court for quashing of Anneuxre-4. 6. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners submits that Anneuxre-4 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no rationale as to why a class of employees indicated in Anneuxre-4 should be treated separately and a class amongst class of Special Task Force should be created to the detriment of a part of the employees. 7. At no point of time, the petitioners were given an opportunity to place their case before the respondents before such a vital decision, having civil consequences, came to visit them. 8. Petitioners have also annexed a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, where a similar decision came to be challenged and such a decision was interfered with by the Court. A copy of the said decision is Annexure-5. 9. With due respect petitioners cannot derive benefit of the decision of the Jharkhand High Court for the reason that it has been based on different set of facts and logic. The facts not being similar, the rationale and reasoning of Annexure-5 cannot apply to the present dispute. 10. The stand taken in the counter affidavit of respondents No.1 and 2 is that a proposal was mooted for creation of 25 additional units of STF. The proposal was initiated at the level of D G of Police i.e. Annexure-A. Based on such a proposal 1172 posts were proposed to be created for the 25 units of STF. However, it was reduced to 1167. The matter was considered by various departments and the Government came to a considered opinion that not all personnel of STF should be given the benefit of special allowance. It should be limited to such personnel who are performing special duty. The department decided that the class of employees, numbering 12, were not involved in the actual combat operation. Therefore, they need to be treated differently than the members of the STF who are involved in actual operation. The State authorities considered all the aspects of the matter and as a policy decision Anneuxre-4 was issued. 11. The department decided that the class of employees, numbering 12, were not involved in the actual combat operation. Therefore, they need to be treated differently than the members of the STF who are involved in actual operation. The State authorities considered all the aspects of the matter and as a policy decision Anneuxre-4 was issued. 11. Even an affidavit on behalf of the S P, STF has been filed, who takes a plea that the decision taken by the State is in keeping with the actual work rendered by such employees and their involvement in performance of the task and object for which STF was created. 12. If Anneuxre-3 and Annexure-4 are read together then it is evident that the reason and object for which special allowance was notified in terms of Anneuxre-3 still subsists. Annexure-3 was issued after due consideration because the said notification itself gives the rationale and reason for extending such benefit to the members of the STF. That position in no manner has changed or altered itself. The dilution which has been made by the respondents by issuing Annexure-4, in the opinion of the Court violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. The fine distinction sought to be created by the State authorities as to the justification for taking away the benefit does not satisfy the requirements of creating a class amongst a class. The STF has been created as a special force. The nuts and bolts put together achieve the objective for which such a force was created. The said force cannot deliver in bits and pieces. The force has to work as a composite whole. There cannot be a fine-distinction that certain set of employees are involved in actual combat operation whereas some others not. In fact, being a member of the Special Task Force itself makes them a class different from the class of the regular police force and because of the onerous risk factor involved in performance of such duties the State Government decided to give encouragement and a kind of social security for the high risk job. The force therefore cannot be divided on the basis of nature of duty being performed by the individuals. 14. The Court therefore is not satisfied with the rationale and reason given by the State Government for taking away the privilege which subsisted for more than 4 years. The force therefore cannot be divided on the basis of nature of duty being performed by the individuals. 14. The Court therefore is not satisfied with the rationale and reason given by the State Government for taking away the privilege which subsisted for more than 4 years. The only object and purpose for issuance of Annexure-4 seems to somehow reduce the financial burden of the State and may be to preempt any disquiet, which may emerge from similar demands from the police force or employees. 15. In totality, therefore, Anneuxre-4 has been issued which does not satisfy the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State Government cannot create a class amongst class for grant of benefits on the basis of so-called nature of duty performed by the holder of posts when these petitioners are part and parcel of the composite force, which was created by the State for special reason and purpose. 16. Writ application is allowed. Annexure-4 dated 26.10.2012 is quashed. 17. Petitioners will continue to derive benefit as per Annexure-3.