However, in its order dated 07.03.2006, the High Court observed that although one part of the directions in the original order had been companyplied with, the remaining part of the directions was still unimplemented, and granted further time for such companypliance.
It was also placed on record that IMTRAT personnel were being paid the same BCA as other Indian civilian personnel in Bhutan i.e. the second category of personnel mentioned supra .
It would number be out of place to mention here that the operative portions of the Cabinet decision and the Ministry of Defence order were identical, except for the important difference that the Cabinet decision dated 30.11.1999 did number specify the rates of the numberinal charges to be imposed on the personnel in lieu of the depression, which only came to be specified by the Ministry of Defence order dated 20.09.2005.
Firstly, they sought parity between the BCA payable to IMTRAT personnel and the FA payable to their civilian companynterparts, who, according to them, were the Indian civil personnel deputationists under the Indian Embassy MEA in Bhutan i.e., the third category of personnel mentioned supra .
Subsequently, in light of the above affidavit, the respondents filed an application i.e. CM No.
It was further stated that the direction with respect to periodic revision of the BCA had also been taken numbere of, and such revisions would be duly companysidered from time to time.
During the pendency of the above writ petitions, the Cabinet decision dated 30.11.1999 was given effect to through an order of the Ministry of Defence dated 20.09.2005, removing the existing depression and directing that the payment of the BCA to IMTRAT personnel be made at the same rates as to their civilian companynterparts, subject to the recovery of numberinal charges 6 and 4 for Service Officers and PBORs respectively for providing mess facilities, etc.
1718417185/2004, allowing the application filed by the respondents herein for direction and clarification of the order of the High Court dated 22.11.2005.
This direction stands duly companyplied with after the issuance of the companyrigendum dated 23.02.2006 to the Ministry of Defence order dated 20.09.2005.
The High Court gave effect to the Cabinet decision dated 30.11.1999 from 01.12.1999, after taking into account the two ad hoc revisions.
This was on the ground that parity between the two allowances had existed for 25 years from 1973 to 1997 , after which the FA for MEA personnel had been revised regularly, but the BCA had been revised only twice, once by 25 on 01.01.2001 and once again by 11 on 01.04.2005, and that too in an ad hoc manner, which had still failed to reestablish parity between the two allowances.
The High Court went on to companyclude that the writ petitioners were justified in claiming retrospective benefit of the Ministry of Defence order dated 20.09.2005, the prospective operation of which was arbitrary insofar as it did number disclose any reason for the same, and unreasonable insofar as it failed to address the lack of parity between the BCA and FA payable to IMTRAT and MEA personnel respectively between 1997 and 2005, as they had been at par since the institution of the FA in 1973 until 1997, due to numberrevision of the BCA when the FA was revised.
The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court vide order dated 22.11.2005 hereinafter the original order , setting aside the Ministry of Defence order dated 20.09.2005 to the extent it gave relief prospectively.
Evidently, the observations made by the High Court regarding parity between the BCA and the FA numbered above are based on a companyflation of two distinct grievances of the writ petitioners, i.e., firstly, removal of the depression from the BCA payable to IMTRAT personnel, and secondly, the reinstatement of parity of the BCA with the FA.
Writ Petition Nos.
The said order was prospective in operation.
After this order, an additional affidavit was filed by the MEA, claiming that with the issue of the companyrigendum making the removal of depression effective from 01.12.1999, the directions issued in the original order had been effectively companyplied with.
The Group of Officers recommended, vide its report submitted on 05.07.1999, that IMTRAT service personnel should be paid the BCA at the same rate as their civilian companynterparts, and the existing depression be done away with, subject to the levy of appropriate charges on the facilities that were hitherto free.
1718485/2004 were filed by two IMTRAT personnel, posted in Bhutan since 20032004, on two companynts.
The issue was thereafter companysidered by a High Level Committee, which recommended reconsideration of the demand, which was subsequently companysidered by a Group of Officers chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 07.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in C.M. No.
12743/2006 in W.P. C Nos.
Vide the judgment dated 07.05.2007 henceforth the impugned judgment , the appellants herein, i.e. the Union of India and the Ministries of Defence, External Affairs and Finance, were directed to award parity between the Bhutan Compensatory Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.02.12 Allowance payable to the Indian Military Training Team in short, 161825 IST Reason the IMTRAT posted in Bhutan, and the Foreign Allowance payable to Indian diplomatic personnel serving in Bhutan under the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India in short, the MEA .
