[Assam Rifles] No Parity Between Combatised & Non-Combatised Personnel, Denial Of Ration Money Allowance To Latter Not Arbitrary: Meghalaya HC

The observations came from a bench comprising Justice H. S. Thangkhiew while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioners, serving in the Assam Rifles in various capacities, were praying for directions upon Centre to grant and release ration money allowance from their date of entitlement.

The petitioners had also impugned orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby, the grant of ration money allowance had been allowed only to combatised non-gazetted Central Para Military Forces, upto the rank of Battalion Commander.

The petitioners submitted that despite being posted in these hazardous areas, they have not been extended the benefit of ration money allowance, which is however granted to the combatised personnel posted in the same station. It was contended that granting of ration money allowance only to uniformed combatised personnel, and depriving the civilian personnel posted in the same hardship areas is an irrational and unreasonable classification.

Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the ration money allowance as per the report of the 5th Central Pay Commission dated 30th January, 1997, is an additional allowance, attached to the discharge of arduous duties in hardship areas, which is unconnected with the normal service conditions of personnel.

In order to supplement their plea the petitioners also referred to a letter dated 30th May, 2022, showing that the respondents (Assam Rifles), have a provision, whereby free rations on a scale applicable to combatants are allowed to Defence Civilians working in Field Areas and Modified Field Areas.

The moot question that fell for adjudication before the court was as to whether the petitioners who are civilian personnel, are being illegally and arbitrarily deprived of the ration money allowance which is being afforded to other combatised personnel while serving in operational areas.

Adjudicating upon the matter the court observed that there was no parity between non-combatised and combatised personnel on account of their nature of service, duties and also the fact that they were governed by separate Rules.

In its bid to explain the finer differences between non-combatised and combatised personnel on account of their nature of service and duties the bench found it worthwhile to record the observation of supreme court in Union of India vs. Ram Gopal Agarwal & Ors. reported in (1998), wherein SC observed,

“There is clear distinction in the terms and conditions of service, the nature of work and even tenure of service inter se between combatised and non-combatised personnels. The combatised personnel retire at the age of 53 while the non-combatised personnel retire at the age of 55. The nature of work, so far as combatised personnel are concerned, is arduous in nature in the operational and sensitive areas. The question of discrimination in the matter of allowances has to be listed differently even inter se between those falling under class of "equal pay for equal work".

Taking note of the fact that the Gauhati High Court in Samir Chandra Kar and 118 others, had dismissed a similar plea which had assailed the orders dated 24.02.2009, which were being impugned in the instant petition, the court observed that earlier pronouncements of this Court, as also the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which has great persuasive value, clearly appreciate the distinction in the conditions of service and suggest that the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ would clearly have no application in the instant case, and the non-grant of ration money allowance to the petitioners who are non-combatants, cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary.

Accordingly the bench found the petition devoid of any merit and dismissed the same .

Case Title: A. Basumatari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 2

Click Here To Read Order