GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 5 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 5:

1. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is claiming benefit under the Bhutan Compensatory Allowance (hereinafter referred to as BCA) posting rate (while working in Bhutan) against the work performed by the petitioner as Driver in Bhutan for the year 2006-2009 (26 months).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Driver in GREF Centre and Records, Dighi Camp, Pune, on 21.01.1999, and later on, the petitioner was posted as Driver at GREF under the control of Chief Engineer, Project Vartak, Tezpur, wherein he is presently working.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that during the course of service, he was transferred from GREF Centre and Records, Dighi Camp, Pune to the office of Officer Commanding, 529 SS & TC (GREF), Guwahati and while he was working as Driver in the office of Officer Commanding, 529 SS & TC (GREF), Guwahati, he was ordered to work as a Driver in Bhutan by the direction and policy issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in the year 2006 and was detailed from the office of Officer Commanding, 529 SS & TC (GREF), Guwahati (State of Assam), India to the office of Officer Commanding, 63 RCC (GREF), Dantak (Bhutan) in the year 2006 and the petitioner assumed his duty as Driver in Project Dantak, (Bhutan) in the year 2006.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the petitioner joined the aforesaid office in Bhutan, he discharged his duties as driver of the vehicles namely Tata TPR (vehicle no. 98E-66288X) and Tata Load Carrier (Tralla) (vehicle no. 04E-60117X), for the supply of construction materials from India to Bhutan and within the territory of Bhutan during the years 2006-2009 (around 26 months).

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that since he was discharging his duties as a driver for supplying the material to Bhutan, he is entitled to be paid the payment as per the BCA rate posting , i.e., the payment that should be given to any personnel who has discharged his duties outside India, i.e., in Bhutan. However, since the petitioner was given the salary as per the normal rate for the drivers in India, he filed an application on 22.08.2023 before the respondent authorities to provide the arrears of payment to the petitioner for performing his duties as a driver in the foreign country for the years 2006-2009 (around 26 months) as per the BCA Rate. However, since the aforesaid application did not bear any fruit, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner has been regularly travelling to Bhutan by driving the official vehicle as per the office order for delivery of construction materials from India, he is entitled to the compensatory allowance as claimed.

8. In support of the claim, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Amarnath Krishan Vs. Union of India in CM No. 3954/2007 and LPA No. 618/2002 to contend that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has granted the BCA posting to similarly placed personnel. He further submits that though the aforesaid order was challenged by the Union of India before the Apex Court, the same was dismissed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqK45D8snAeoN6cL%2BfaM7CIRIMStMN7YaNXcOMuzDc8Cn&caseno=WP(C)/4576/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010182562024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.