N SYAMASUNDAR Vs. A P S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that is convassed before me in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the State Government employees on deputation to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, is that the deputation allowance paid to them should be treated as part of teir pay for the purpose of computing dearness, allowance, compensatory allowance and house rent allowance payable to them by the State Electricity Board (herein after referred to as the Board) Although certain other points also were taken in the writ petition tney are not argued before me end it is unnecessary to refer to the seme.

(2.) It is the case of the petitoners that on & representation made by the Association of Engineers, tneir claim thet the deputation allowance paid to the Stata Government employees should be computed for the purpose of assessing the deasress allowarce, comper setory allowarce and house rent allowance payable to them, was accepted and they were accordingly paid from 17-11-1977 to 1 2-1-1979 and their claim that it should be paid from 1-10-1973 was rejected. However this Was stcoped from 12-1-1979 and the amount already paid to them between 17-11-1977 and 1 2-11-1979 was sought to be recovered. The petitioners therefore invoked the jurisdCtion of this court and cought stay of the reccvery of this amount It is the contention of the petitioners that in so for as the central Government employees on deputation are concerned deputation allowence is being treated as part of their pay for the purpose of ascertaining the dearness allowance, compensatory allowance and house rent allowance payable to them, but the same is denied to the petitioners, This action of the respondent is challenged PS discretionary and violative of the fundamentel rights guaranteed to a citizer urder Arts 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India It is also their contention that irrespective of whether a particular Engineer is deputed to APSEB from the Central Govarnment Service or the State Government service or is appoin- ted by direct recruitment or absorbed In the Board's service on transfer, they all perform the same dutiea and as such their pay should be the same and the principles adopted in calculating the dearness allowance, compensatory allowance and house rent allowance should not vary. Any such differentiation would amount to discrimination violalive of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is common ground that some of the State Government employees who were on deputation were later absorbed in the Board and all the employees in the Board receive higher pay then the State Government employees on deputation although they perform similar cuties.

(3.) The entire contention of the petitioners is based on the assumption that the State Government employees and the Central Government employees form a single class. But that assumption however cannot be accepted as correct. Apart from the fact that these two form two distinct services under two different Governments the State Government employees form a class by themselves and they are governed by conditions of service different from those of the Central Government employees and governed by different scales of pay. When they form two different classes, the question of any discrimination would not arise.