Appeal against an order upholding the grant of special allowance to Special Task Force members. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the State's rationale for withdrawal unjustified and the classification non-arbitrary.
Appeal dismissed; the order granting special allowance to respondents remains valid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.571 of 2016 IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 743 of 2015
=========================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar through the Home Secretary (Police), Government of Bihar, Patna,
.... .... Respondents/ Appellant/s
Versus 1. Poonam Kumari, daughter of Sri Pratma Singh, R/O- Village and post- Airu, P.S. Sahjanhapur, District- Patna. 2. Sujeet Paswan, Son of Sri Ram Swarup Paswan, R/O- Village- Kodhra, PostMouri, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna. 3. Lal Mohan Thakur, Son of Sri Rajendra Thakur, R/O- Village- Pokhrapar, PostKtajrat Nawadih, P.S.- Hussainabad, District- Palamu, Jharkhand. 4. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Shamlal Rai, R/O- Village- Baknaira, Post- Banjari, P.S.Rohtas, District- Rohtas. 5. Shiv Kumar Sahni, Son of Mr. Ram Surat Sahni, R/O Village- Vagapakar Murli, Post- Dariyapur Vada, P.S.- Harsidhi, District- Motihari.
Patna High Court LPA No.571 of 2016 dt.04-10-2017
2/5
P.S.- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. 19. Alok Kumar, Son of Late Prasad Sah, R/O- Mohalla- Dhantoliya Ward No-33 Pani Tanki, Post +P.S.- Dehri-on-sone, District- Rohtas.
Patna High Court LPA No.571 of 2016 dt.04-10-2017
3/5
Barsam , P.S.- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa.
.... ....Petitioners/ Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nagendra Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 04-10-2017
Seeking exception to an order dated 29.10.2015 passed by
the learned Writ Court in CWJC No. 743 of 2015 in the matter of grant of benefit of special allowance to the respondents-petitioners this appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Bihar under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
There being a delay of 97 days in filing of the appeal I.A.No. 2552 of 2015 has been filed. Keeping in view the reasons indicated therein this application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Respondent-petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the notification issued by the State Government on 26.10.2012
Patna High Court LPA No.571 of 2016 dt.04-10-2017
4/5
deciding to withdraw the benefit of special allowance which was being granted to the petitioner @ 30% of the basic pay. It was the case of the petitioners that the act of the respondent authorities in withdrawing the benefit after granting for four years is discriminatory in nature. This has been done without hearing them and without granting any opportunity.
The learned Writ Court evaluated the matter and found that apart from the fact that the benefit is withdrawn without hearing to the petitioners the reasons and the rationale behind granting the benefit initially and withdrawing it after four years only on account of certain observations made by the Finance Department was not justified. The learned Writ Court in paragraphs -13 and 14 of the impugned order as dealt with the issue in the following manner:-
“13. The fine distinction sought to be created by the State authorities as to the justification for taking away the benefit does not satisfy the requirements of creating a class amongst a class. The STF has been created as a special force. The nuts and bolts put together achieve the objective for which such a force was created. The said force cannot be delivered in bits and pieces. The force has to work as a composite whole. There cannot be a fine distinction that certain set of employees are involved in actual combat operation whereas some others not. In fact, being a member of the Special Task Force itself makes them
Patna High Court LPA No.571 of 2016 dt.04-10-2017
5/5
a class different from the class of the regular police force and because of the onerous risk factor involved in performance of such duties the State Government decided to give encouragement and a kind of social security for the high risk job. The force therefore cannot be divided on the basis of nature of duty being performed by the individuals.
“14. The Court therefore is not satisfied with the rationale and reason given by the State Government for taking away the privilege which subsisted for more than 4 years. The only object and purpose for issuance of Annexure-4 seems to somehow reduce the financial burden of the State and may be to preempt any disquiet, which may emerge from similar demands from the police force or employees.”
We see no error in the order of the learned Writ Court
warranting reconsideration. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
mrl
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| UploadingDate | 07.10.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
N.A. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court was justified in holding that withdrawing special allowance without hearing petitioners was discriminatory.
Whether the classification of Special Task Force members is arbitrary for the purpose of granting social security benefits.
State Of Bihar
Poonam Kumari
Sujeet Paswan
Lal Mohan Thakur
Sanjay Kumar
Shiv Kumar Sahni
Rajendra Menon
Anil Kumar Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
