CRPF Personnel Entitled to Special Duty Allowance: Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order
The Supreme Court of India, in Director General, CRPF & Ors. vs. Janardan Singh & Ors., upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision, ensuring that CRPF personnel deployed in the North Eastern Region (NER) were entitled to Special Duty Allowance (SDA), irrespective of the location of their headquarters. The judgment dismissed the government’s appeal and reinforced the principle of fair compensation for personnel serving in challenging regions.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a long-standing dispute over the eligibility of CRPF personnel for Special Duty Allowance. The government had initially granted the allowance to employees whose headquarters were in the NER but denied it to those deployed in the region with headquarters elsewhere.
The respondents, who were CRPF pharmacists, filed a claim stating that they were posted in NER and, therefore, should receive SDA as per the government’s 1983 and 1986 Office Memorandums (OMs). Their claim was rejected, leading them to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled in their favor.
The government challenged this decision in the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the CAT’s ruling. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The government contended:
- The respondents were not entitled to SDA before August 3, 2005, as their headquarters were outside the NER.
- The policy initially limited SDA to personnel whose headquarters were within the NER.
- The August 3, 2005, OM clarified that all CRPF personnel deployed in NER were eligible, but this should not apply retrospectively.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents countered:
- The SDA policy was intended to compensate personnel working in difficult conditions, regardless of headquarters location.
- The August 3, 2005, OM was clarificatory and did not create a new entitlement.
- Denying SDA based on headquarters location was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The Supreme Court examined the purpose of SDA and stated:
“The purpose and object of granting Special Duty Allowance was to encourage, attract, and retain competent officers in the North Eastern Region. Denying this benefit solely based on the location of headquarters lacks any intelligible differentia and fails the test of reasonable classification.”
The Court held that the August 3, 2005, OM was a clarification, not a new policy, and ruled that SDA should be granted to all CRPF personnel deployed in NER for the entire duration of their posting.
Final Judgment and Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled:
- The government’s appeal was dismissed.
- CRPF personnel posted in NER were entitled to SDA from the date of their posting, not just from August 3, 2005.
- The denial of SDA based on headquarters location was unconstitutional.
This landmark judgment reinforces fair treatment of government employees and upholds their rights to allowances designed to compensate for service in challenging conditions. The ruling ensures equitable benefits for personnel serving in the North Eastern Region.
Petitioner Name: Director General, CRPF & Ors..Respondent Name: Janardan Singh & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Ashok Bhushan.Place Of Incident: North Eastern Region, India.Judgment Date: 02-07-2018.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Director General, CR vs Janardan Singh & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-07-2018.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
