Summary
The High Court could not use clarification proceedings to add parity between military personnel’s Bhutan Compensatory Allowance and diplomatic personnel’s Foreign Allowance to its earlier final order. That order only required retrospective implementation of the decision replacing the former deductions with nominal charges, which had been complied with. The distinct duties, service conditions and facilities also defeated parity on merits. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court directed immediate removal of the remaining 6% and 4% deductions for IMTRAT officers and personnel below officer rank.
Issues
- Whether clarification could expand the earlier order to require parity between Bhutan Compensatory Allowance and diplomatic Foreign Allowance.
- Whether parity was justified on merits and what relief concerning remaining deductions should be granted.
Provisions considered
- Removal of earlier depression and recovery of nominal charges, Ministry of Defence order dated 20 September 2005 and corrigendum dated 23 February 2006The retrospective implementation directed by the original High Court order had been complied with; its scope did not extend to parity with diplomatic allowance. (¶¶ 6–8, 16–22, 31)
- Rules 2 and 7, Indian Foreign Service (Pay, Leave, Compensatory Allowance and Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981The diplomatic service’s separate governing framework and foreign-allowance provision supported the distinction from IMTRAT personnel. (¶ 26)
Held
- A clarification cannot expand explicit operative directions to include a separate relief prayed for but not granted. The earlier order only retrospectively implemented the Cabinet decision concerning deductions and nominal charges; its observations had conflated that grievance with parity. (¶ 16–22)
- Parity was also unsupported on merits: comparable work was not established, service conditions differed, IMTRAT benefited from facilities and additional allowances, and past equivalence did not compel its continuation. The State could assess compensatory allowances according to country-specific circumstances. (¶ 25–29)
- Although IMTRAT personnel were not deputationists, that did not establish parity with diplomats. In the underlying recommendations, civilian counterparts meant non-military recipients of BCA without deductions, rather than MEA personnel receiving Foreign Allowance. (¶ 30–31)
- In recognition of the difficult conditions in Bhutan bordering China and the personnel’s responsibilities, the Government was directed to remove the remaining 6% and 4% deductions from BCA for officers and personnel below officer rank respectively with immediate effect. (¶ 31–32)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; clarificatory judgment dated 7 May 2007 set aside, with immediate removal of the remaining BCA deductions as directed.