MAGZEE RAM Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Himachal Pradesh Police Force as a Constable in the year 1962. In Sept. or Oct., 1968, he was transferred to the District of Mahasu and was in receipt at that time of a basic pay of Rs. 125.00, dearness allowance of Rs. 98.00 and compensatory allowance of Rs. 11.00. With effect from March 1, 1971, the Government of Himachal Pradesh decided to revise the dearness allowance and compensatory allowance of the members of its Police Force. A part of the dearness allowance amounting to Rs. 70.00 was designated as dearness pay and formed part of the pay. The compensatory allowance to which the superior non-gazetted establishment staff was entitled was increased to 30 per sent of the basic pay and dearness pay subject subject to a maximum of Rs. 75.00. This decision was communicated by an office memorandum No. 2-6/70 Fin (R & E) dated April 1, 1970. The revised compensatory allowance and dearness allowance was paid to the petitioner for some time but there after the compensatory allowance payable for the month of April, 1971 was reduced by 1/4th on the ground that: the petitioner had been enjoying rent-free accommodation. This was done apparently in view of an audit objection dated Jan. 23, 1970. The petitioner contends that the reduction effected in the compensatory allowance is contrary to law, and accordingly applies for relief under Art, 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner, from the inception of his service, belonged to the Police Force of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh as it existed before the Punjab Reorganisation Act was brought into force. Therefore, before Nov. 1, 1966, he was governed by the rules relating to the Himachal Pradesh Police Force. In 1951, the Himachal Pradesh Government adopted a body of rules identical with the rules printed in Volumes I to III of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and while paragraph 10.63 of the Punjab Police Rules was omitted, Para 10.76 included. In the result the personnel of the Police Force of Himachal Pradesh became entitled to rent-free accommodation or house-rent allowance in lieu thereof. Subsequently in 1964, the Government of India sanctioned the grant of compensatory allowance to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh Government. In 1966, however, the Himachal Pradesh Government decided that with effect from may 13, 1963, the rate of compensatory allowance sanctioned in favour of non-secretariat employees, borne on Punjab scales of pay and allowances would be reduced by 1/4th in the case of Government servants provided with rent-free quarters or allowed house-rent allowance in lieu thereof. It appears that effect was not uniformly given to this decision and on Jan. 23, 1970, Shri. R. N. Behl Internal Auditor, referred to the instructions contained in the Government's letter No. Fin 19-19/59-III dated Sept. 1, 1966 and pointed out that while the necessary deduction was being made from officials who were paid house rent allowance. it was not being effected in the case of other employees provided with rent-free quarters or barrack accommodation in the Police Station. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, is that there is no legal justification for the reduction. He points out that the only justification attempted by the respondents in this writ petition is on the basis of Annexure RI to the return filed by the respondents, which is a letter from the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Chief Conservator of Forests and has nothing to do with the Police Force. The contention in my opinion, must be rejected. As I have pointed out in Aggar Singh Vs. State, C. W. P. No. 102 of 1971. D/- 3-7-1972 (Him Pra) the concept of compensatory allowance is well known and Fundamental Rule 9 (5) treats it as an allowance granted to meet expenditure necessitated by the special circumstances in which duty is performed. An expenditure necessitated by such special circumstances includes rent paid for accommodation hired by the officer for his residence. In a case where the Officer is provided rent-free accommodation there is reasonable ground for reducing the compensatory allowance. In the circumstances, when the Government decided to reduce the compensatory allowance sanctioned to its Police Force, its action cannot be described as arbitrary.

(3.) The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compensatory allowance in the case of the Police Force should not have been reduced with effect from March 1, 1971, but with effect from Feb. 1, 1968 as in the case of other Government Servants. The contention was raised in C. W. P. No. 102 of 1971. D/- 3-7-1972 (Him Pra) (supra) and has been repelled by me. The same facts have been pleaded in this case, and on the same grounds I reject the contention in this case also.