KISALAY MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question involved in this Tribunal application is whether the Central Government was right in refusing to extend special incentive to the Ministerial Staff of Central Investigation of Bureau (hereinafter referred to as CBI) whereas identical benefit was extended to the staff working in Research and Analytical Wing (hereinafter referred to as RAW) and Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter referred to as I.B.)

(2.) The petitioners were working as Ministerial Staff working in CBI at Kolkata. CBI had two groups of staff, one being the executive staff i.e. the investigating people working as Constable up to the post of Director and the other group called as Ministerial Staff who worked in the office as clerical cadre and Class-IV employees. All of them were Government servants within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. THE Central Government declared incentive allowance vide circular dated September 11, 2006 to the executive staff working in CBI at the rate of twenty-five per cent of Basic Pay+Dearness Allowance up to the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and at the rate of fifteen per cent of the Basic Pay+Dearness Allowance for the officers above the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police. This incentive allowance was subject to conditions imposed by the said circular. Similar benefit was extended by the Central Government, RAW and Investigation Bureau. However, when the Central Government extended the said benefit to the other two agencies they termed it as special security allowance at the rate of fifteen per cent of the Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance pay to all employees irrespective of their status meaning thereby, the Ministerial Staff working in those two agencies were also extended such benefit as would appear from the circular dated June 19, 2006 in case of RAW and June 16, 2006 in case of intelligence Bureau (I.B.). THE Joint Director (Administration), CBI, New Delhi appreciated the anomaly and vide circular dated October 17, 2006 observed that the matter had been considered by the head office. THE said circular clearly stated, "it has been the endeavour of the CBI to ensure equity among all his staff members as a well knit close family". By the said circular the Joint Director informed that the matter had already been sent to the Pay Commission for their consideration. THE applicants before us also referred to a minutes of the meeting held by the Joint Director on November 1, 2006 when the anomalies were discussed in detail and the hierarchy of CBI appreciated the anomaly and found justification in the claim and contention of the applicants.

(3.) We find from the above extract that the claim was refused on the ground that the allowance would automatically go once the recommended pay would be implemented. No additional allowance was thus necessary. The Pay Commission failed to appreciate that the recommendation was not for increase of the rate of allowance for the executive Staff. It was for bringing equity by extending the identical benefit to the Ministerial Staff. If the earlier incentives would be taken care of at the time of revision of pay the pay of the executive would be enhanced whereas the Ministerial Staff would get automatically a reduced pay without the benefit of the incentive already granted to the executive staff earlier.