AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners have filed this writ petition for the grant of following relief's:
In the premises, it is accordingly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case be pleased to show indulgence in
the matter and by the issuance of writ, order or direction indulging a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse/pay
to the petitioner the facilities/incentives in the nature of disturbance allowance, transport and food, double HRA, one month's salary as advance on
the analogy and principles on which it came to be provided to all the employees working in all the subsidiaries of the General Insurance
Corporation of India in the Kashmir Valley, from the date the said incentives were provided to them.
Admitted facts of this case are that petitioners are working with the United India Insurance Company Limited which is a subsidiary of General
Insurance Corporation of India. Ail the petitioners are presently working at Jammu since they migrated in the year 1990 on account of widespread
disturbances in the Valley. Prior to their migration, all the petitioners were working at different places in the Valley with the United India Insurance
Company Limited.
In the aforesaid circumstances petitioners claim that they be provided double house rent allowance (HRA). Transport and food, board and lodge
facilities, one month's advance salary and disturbance allowance.
All these incentives have been provided by the United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2) to all its
migrant employees, who had in tact resumed back their duties in the Kashmir Valley and leaving their faculties at different places/stations because
of the situation prevailing there. It is further not in dispute that to the employees, who pursuant to the directions of General Insurance Corporation
of India (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1) issued through its subsidiaries like respondent no.2 resumed duties in the Valley were and are
getting the aforesaid incentives. It is further not in dispute that petitioners were neither willing nor are even now prepared to resume their duties in
the Valley.
The above said incentives have been claimed by the petitioners, as according to them those were to be granted to all the migrant employees. As
per petitioners' claim they are entitled for the grant of such incentives being migrants on account of their having sustained mental agony, tremendous
inconvenience while working at Jammu, leaving their home and hearth as also other comforts which they had in the Valley. Claim for the grant of
such incentives is based on the plea that since migrants are also working far away i.e. at Jammu, therefore relief deserves to be allowed to them as
prayed for. Further plea of the petitioners was that some other similarly situate persons have been granted the relief as prayed for by them in this
writ petition.
While admitting that the petitioners were working in the Valley prior to their migration to Jammu in the year 1990, it has been submitted by the
respondents that none of them is entitled to the relief claimed for. Further case of the respondents is that with a view to face the challenge of
militancy as well as to ensure that the functionaries of Government of India including respondents 1 & 2 keep the office working, incentives detailed
in the writ petition and referred to hereinabove were offered to such employees who were willing to go and work in the Valley after leaving their
families at other places/stations. Such incentives according to respondents are not available to those migrant employees who have come out of the
Valley and are living with their families elsewhere. On the other hand the incentives have been provided to such employees who are ready and
willing, and who have in fact gone and resumed their duties in the Valley. Thus according to respondents there is no similarity in the case of
petitioners and all those employees who are presently working in the Valley and have been provided the incentives. Details of such incentives
offered in the year 1990 are mentioned in the reply in the following terms:
Payment of disturbed Area Allowance.
One months (gross) salary in advance on refund basis.
Personal Accident Insurance Cover (Premium to be paid by coy).
Payment of 75% daily allowance.
Additional HRA in lieu of leased accommodation to the family of those who were working in the Valley while their families shifted out of Kashmir.
Boarding and lodging charges cumhotel charges.
Food and Transport charges.
Regarding payment of these incentives to other employees of the subsidiary of respondent no.1, who were not migrants and were attending to their
duties in the Valley, stand of the respondents 1 and 2 is that though they were not entitled to it but they preferred a civil suit in the Court of City
Judge, Srinagar, wherein they sought declaration that they were also entitled to receive the incentives/allowances/benefits which were provided to
migrant employees and had joined their duties in Kashmir Valley. The trial court decreed this suit and appeal against it was decided by the 4th
Additional District Judge, Srinagar on 2281994. It was in such situation that defendants/judgement debtors in execution of the decree granted to
such employees risk allowance, one month gross salary in advance, personal accident insurance cover, transport charges, food charges and
additional house rent from 1st March, 1990.
In the light of aforesaid facts claim made by the petitioners is totally fallacious and without any legitimate basis as would be seen for the reasons
recorded hereinafter.
Keeping in view the peculiar situation and circumstances in which those employees, working with respondent no.2 and other subsidiaries of
respondent no.1, were asked to go to Valley after turmoil in the year 1990 and after exodus of big number of them, with a view to make the
offices functional special clause was carved out by the respondents by offering them special incentives. These incentives were in the nature of an
allurement to such migrant employees to return back to duties at the cost of deprivation and separation from their families. In this view of the matter
plea urged by Shri Koul that being migrants and on the analogy of employees working in Kashmir Valley his clients are entitled to the same benefit
as offered to employees willing to serve in the Valley, is totally ill founded and is hereby rejected.
Another reason to turn down this plea is that all the petitioners are stationed and working in Jammu indifferent offices of respondent no.2 and
are here with their respective families.
Now coming to the other argument that some other employees are getting the aforesaid incentives including those who are not migrants, so there
being no question of their petitioner's resuming duties in the Valley. Suffice it to say that it was pursuant to the execution of judgement and decree
passed by the Court of City Judge, Srinagar, which was upheld in appeal. As such no benefit can be derived by the petitioners from such payment.
At the risk of repetition it may be reiterated here that there is no similarity in the case of petitioners and those employees who had not migrated
from Valley belonging to the staff of respondent no.2 or other subsidiaries of respondent no.1. As such this argument is also without any legal
foundation.
From the above discussion it is manifestly clear that there is no similarity in the case of petitioners visà vis other employees. It may be appropriate
to notice the submission of Shri Jamwa! That all other migrant employees, who are ready and willing to go and work in the Valley, can be provided
such incentives as admissible to them and are in force at the time of their joining the duty in the Valley under the decision of respondents governing
the same.
No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2000/