VENKATARAMIAH - (1.) THE petitioners in these petitions, 80 in number, are employees of the Central Government working in the Central Bureau of Investigation. Some of them are holding the posts of Sub-Inspectors, some are Inspectors and the remaining are the Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation. THEre are two classes of officials amongst those who are holding the posts of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police. THE first class of those officials to which the petitioners belong consists of those who have been recruited directly to the Central Bureau of Investigation. THEy are hereinafter referred to as 'non-deputationists'. THE other class of officials in those cadres consists of those who have been drawn from various State cadres. THEy are hereinafter referred to as 'deputationists'.
(2.) IN this case the dispute relates to the discrimination that has been brought about by the Central Government regarding the Special Pay payable to the two groups of officers, namely, 'deputationists' and 'non-deputationists'. While a Deputy Superintendent of police who belongs to the category of 'deputationists' is getting Rs. 150.00per month by way of Special Pay, a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is a non-deputationist gets Rs. 100.00 per month as Special Pay. Similarly while an INspector belonging to the former category gets Rs. 125.00 per month as Special Pay, an INspector belonging to the latter category gets Rs. 75.00 per month as Special Pay and while a Sub-INspector belonging to the former category gets Rs. 100.00 per month by way of Special Pay, a Sub-INspector belonging to the latter category gets Rs. 50.00 per month. The petitioners, who are non-deputationists, claim that they should also be paid the same Special Pay which the deputationists are getting with effect from the date on which the deputationists commenced to draw the Special Pay at higher rates. The two groups of officers, referred to above are all working in the 14 Branches of the Central Bureau of Investigation which are called Central Investigating Units. It is not disputed that the two sets of officers, namely, the 'non-deputationists' and the 'deputationists' in the ranks of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police discharge the same functions, duties and responsibilities in the various Central Investigating Units. They have to travel to different places for purposes of investigation into the several cases entrusted to them. The Special Pay that is being paid to the deputationists is in addition to the Deputation Allowance paid them which is not Admissible to the non-deputationists. The Deputation Allowance is paid to the deputationists as compensation for the temporary displacement from their parent cadres occasioned by their deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. At present a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is on deputation gets Rs. 150.00 per month as Deputation Allowance, an Inspector who is on deputation gets Rs. 150.00 per month as Deputation Allowance and a Sub-Inspector who is on deputation gets Rs. 100.00 per month as Deputation Allowance. It is also alleged that in the non Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation the rates of Special Pay paid to the officers working in the three cadres of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police are the same both in the case of deputationists and non-deputationists, but in the case of Central Investigating Units, however, to which the petitioners belong the deputationists in all the three ranks get Special Pay at higher rates as stated above. It would also appear that between June, 1976 and August, 1979 the Deputy Superintendents of Police belonging to the category of non-deputationists were totally denied the Special pay of Rs. 150.00 per month which was being given to the Deputy Superintendents of Police who are on deputation. It is contended by the petitioners that the denial of the Special Pay at the same rates at which the deputationists are being paid amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In answer to the above claim of the petitioners it is stated on behalf of the Central Government in the counter-affidavit filed by Shri R. S. Nagpal, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) that because the State Governments had revised scales of pay of their staff including the State Police from different dates merging whole or substantial portion of the dearness allowance and because the dearness allowance and the structure of pay scales differed widely from one State to another, there could not be any comparison between the scales of pay of the deputationists and the scales of pay of the non-deputationists which had been fixed on the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. It is further stated that the Special Pay was being paid to the deputationists at a higher rate to attract officers of high calibre from their parent departments and the arduous nature of their duties.
(3.) IT is well settled by several decisions of this Court that in order to pass the test of permissible classification of persons belonging to the same class into groups for purposes of differential treatment two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons who are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law which brings about discrimination between the two groups. The Deputation Allowance which is paid to the deputationists with which the petitioners have no quarrel compensates the difficulties which the deputationists may encounter on account of their displacement from their parent departments. The Special Pay, however, is not actually paid as compensation for such displacement. This is quite evident from the recent proposal which was submitted to the Fourth Pay Commission by the Government of India. IT reads thus : "Considering special nature of duties of Investigating Officers in Central Branches and the fact that they were to remain on extensive tours spreading about 20 days a month, the rate of special pay for deputationist officers only was raised by Rs. 50.00 p.m. for S. Is., Inspectors and Dy. S.P. They get special pay at the following rates : JUDGEMENT_592_1_1987Html1.htm There has been demand that departmental officers posted in Central Branches should also be entitled to the same amount of enhanced special pay which has been sanctioned to the deputationists. IT is considered that this demand is genuine and the Government had desired it should be projected before the Fourth Pay Commission." It is clear from the foregoing proposal submitted to the Fourth Pay Commission that the Special Pay was being paid at higher rates to the deputationists not because of their displacement from the parent departments but as compensation for the arduous nature of the duties performed by them as Investigating Officers in the Central Branches which included extensive tours spreading over about 20 days a month which they had to undertake. It is not in dispute that the nature of the duties performed by the deputationists as Investigating Officers is the same as the nature of duties performed by the non-deputationist's as Investigating Officers. It is significant that the said proposal which was submitted perhaps during the pendency of this Writ Petition does not refer to the difference in the rates of pay and dearness allowance which the deputationists were getting as members belonging to the Police departments of different States nor does it state that the Special Pay was being paid for attracting talent from the State Services. The petitioners have alleged that the non-deputationists holding the posts of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police are highly qualified persons and are equally talented and this allegation is not properly traversed in the counter-affidavit.;