Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1379 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 23 July, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                       Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010054062025




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:9481

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Review.Pet./36/2025

            EX GO 2518M SHRI M.L AGRAWAL
            S/O SHRI KASTUR CHAND AGARWAL, PERMANENT R/O GANDHI SAGAR,
            DIST. MANDSAUR, MADHYA PRADESH 458771, INDIA.

            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH
            BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001

            2:THE DEFENCE SECY.
             MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
             SOUTH BLOCK
             NEW DELHI 110001.

            3:THE JOINT SECY. (BR-WING)
             MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (EARLIER DESIGNATED AS SECY. (BRDB)) ROOM
            NO 418 B WING
             4TH FLOOR
             SENA BHAWAN
             NEW DELHI 110011

            4:DIRECTOR GENERAL
             BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION
             SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN
             RING ROAD
             DELHI CANTT. NEW DELHI 11001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRS. R BORAH, MR. D BORAH

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,
                                                                     Page No.# 2/6

                                BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                    ORDER

Date : 23.07.2025 Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI for the respondents.

2. The review petitioner's prayer is that the judgment and order dated 08.03.2022, passed in WP(C) 3226/2014 should be reviewed, wherein this Court had directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner Rs.99,608/- per month, as Bhutan compensatory allowance, for his service period in Project Dantak, Bhutan along with any enhancement of the allowance made prior to May, 2016, after adjusting the amount already paid to him.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the said direction had been made on the basis of the letter dated 06.04.2015, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence, Border Roads, which took into consideration the order dated 05.06.2014, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Northern Division.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that while Sl. No. 3 of the letter dated 06.04.2015 provided BCA to be given @ Rs.99,608/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2013, for officers drawing grade pay of Rs. 6,600/- per month & above, but less than Rs.8,700/- per month, the order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the Ministry of External Affairs had proposed BCA w.e.f. 01.04.2013 @ 1,10,520/-. Thus, because of the order dated 05.06.2014 not being a part of the writ petition, which prevented this Court from seeing it's content, this Court had directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner Rs.99,608/- per month, as Page No.# 3/6

Bhutan compensatory allowance (BCA, in short). However, the petitioner was actually entitled to be given BCA @ Rs.1,10,520/- as per the order dated 05.06.2014.

5. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI was directed to obtain instructions as to whether the BCA rate provided for officers drawing Rs.6,600/- per month and above and less than Rs.8,700/- per month at Rs.99,608/-, as reflected in the letter dated 06.04.2015, had been intentionally made or whether the same has been a mistake, keeping in view the proposed BCA rate provided in the order dated 05.06.2014. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury was also directed to obtain instructions as to whether the order dated 05.06.2014 was with regard to a proposed BCA rate or as to whether the BCA rate had been fixed by the Ministry of External Affairs, thereby making the word "proposed" which has been affixed in the order dated 05.06.2014, redundant. He was also directed to obtain instructions as to whether the order dated 05.06.2014 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Northern Division, was binding upon the petitioner, who worked for the Border Roads Division under the Ministry of Defence.

6. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury was also directed to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner was entitled to two full servant components @ Rs.5456 x 2 in terms of the BCA. He was also directed to obtain instructions as to whether complement of two servant components would be applicable to the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner would require to have two servants for making a claim for the said amount of Rs.10,912/-, as part of his BCA during his Bhutan tenure. Also, whether the petitioner would be entitled to the pay of two servants, even if he did not employ two servants during his Bhutan tenure.

Page No.# 4/6

7. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury has submitted letter dated 25.04.2025, issued by the Assistant Administrative Officer, Officer-in-Charge, Regional Legal Cell (Eastern Sector), C/o HQ Addl. DGBR (East) and letter dated 22.07.2025, issued by the Assistant Administrative Officer, Officiating Officer-in-Charge, Regional Legal Cell (Eastern Sector) C/o HQ Addl. DGBR (East).

8. The letter dated 25.04.2025, issued by the Assistant Administrative Officer, Officer-in-Charge, Regional Legal Cell (Eastern Sector) C/o HQ Addl. DGBR (East) is to the effect that the difference in BCA sanctioned, i.e., in respect of the order dated 05.06.2014 and the letter dated 06.04.2015, was on account of deduction of two servant components @Rs.5456/- per month from the BCA provided in the order dated 05.06.2014, amounting to Rs.1,10,520/-. The said Rs.5456/- when multiplied for two servants, comes to Rs.10,912/-. Thus, the subsequent letter dated 06.04.2015 has not taken into account the two full servant components payable under the BCA. The learned Deputy SGI submits that the servant components had been voluntarily foregone by the DGBR for GREF officials serving in Project Dantak, Bhutan.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

10. The letter dated 22.07.2025, issued by the Assistant Administrative Officer, Officiating Officer-in-Charge, Regional Legal Cell (Eastern Sector) C/o HQ Addl. DGBR (East) and the letter dated 11.03.2008, issued by the Under Secretary to the Border Road Development Board, which is addressed to the Joint Director (P&C) HQ DGBR show that the DGBR had voluntarily foregone the servant components in the BCA in respect of GREF officials serving in Project Dantak in Bhutan.

Page No.# 5/6

11. To recapitulate the facts of this case, this Court finds that the issue is with regard to the difference of the BCA to be provided in terms of the letter dated 06.04.2015, which has been made in pursuance to the earlier order dated 05.06.2014. In terms of the order dated 05.06.2014, the petitioner is to receive BCA amounting to Rs.1,10,520/-. However, in terms of the subsequent letter dated 06.04.2015, the petitioner is to be paid Rs.99,608/-. This Court had accordingly allowed the writ petition, by directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner BCA @ Rs.99,608/-. The review petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner should have been paid BCA @ Rs.1,10,520/- per month, in terms of the order dated 05.06.2014.

12. The order dated 05.06.2014 was never a part of the pleadings in the writ petition. The reason given by the respondents as to why the petitioner should be paid BCA @Rs.99,608/- and not @ Rs.1,10,520/- has been spelt out in the letters dated 25.04.2025, 22.07.2025 and 11.03.2008, which has been submitted during the course of the proceedings of this review petition and the same were also never a part of the writ petition.

13. On considering the fact that the salary for two servant components @ Rs.5456/- each, for those availing of the BCA prior to the DGBR foregoing the same, would show that the BCA was to be paid @ Rs.1,10,520/- per month. However, as the two servant components have been voluntarily foregone, as reflected in the letter dated 11.03.2008, issued by the Under Secretary to the Border Road Development Board, BRDB, there is no ground to review the judgment and order dated 08.03.2022 passed in WP(C) 3226/2014, as deduction of Rs.10,912/-, out of Rs.1,10,520/-, would amount to the BCA being Rs.99,608/-.

Page No.# 6/6

14. In view of the above reasons, the review petition is rejected. However, keeping in view the fact that the documents, submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents were not a part of the writ petition and in view of the fact that the letter dated 11.03.2008, issued by the Under Secretary, BRDB, was not a part of the writ petition, the petitioner is given the liberty to make a challenge to the letter dated 11.03.2008, issued by the Under Secretary to the Border Road Development Board, BRDB, if so advised.

15. The letters dated 25.04.2025, 22.07.2025 and 11.03.2008 are accordingly made a part of the record and marked as Annexures- X, Y & Z respectively.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant