Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Special (Duty) Allowance for CRPF personnel for periods actually served in the North Eastern Region, despite their headquarters being outside it. The 3 August 2005 memorandum clarified the existing benefit rather than limiting eligibility prospectively. The earlier headquarters-based distinction lacked an intelligible differentia and rational connection with attracting and retaining personnel in that region.
Issues
- Whether personnel actually serving in the North Eastern Region could be denied allowance for pre-August 2005 service because their headquarters were elsewhere.
- Whether the headquarters-based classification satisfied Article 14.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe headquarters-based distinction between personnel posted and serving in the same region failed both the intelligible-differentia and rational-nexus tests. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Paragraph 2, Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 3 August 2005The clarification allowed claims under the existing Finance Ministry criteria and required actual service in the region; it did not restrict the benefit to service after its date. (¶¶ 7, 8, 16)
Held
- The allowance was attached to actual posting and service in the North Eastern Region. Headquarters outside the region had no nexus with that entitlement or the policy’s purpose of attracting and retaining competent personnel there. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 13, 14)
- The 2005 memorandum was clarificatory. Its wording did not make the allowance available only from 3 August 2005, so the personnel were entitled for the periods they actually worked in the region under the applicable scheme. (¶¶ 7, 8, 16)
- Distinguishing otherwise similarly situated personnel by the location of their headquarters lacked an intelligible differentia and rational connection with the scheme’s object. Denying earlier service benefits merely because the Government corrected that error in 2005 would perpetuate the unconstitutional distinction. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirming allowance for periods actually worked in the North Eastern Region sustained.