WA/394/2025 of GS NO 180368HNTD MAHENDER SINGH Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. on 7 June 2026

GAHC010243902025

2026:GAU-AS:7964

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/394/2025 GS NO 180368HNTD MAHENDER SINGH S/O. LATE SAWAL DAS, R/O.- ROWSHAN BIHAR, LAKSHMI NAGAR, DIST.- MATHURA, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN- 281001. PRESENTLY POSTED AT 91 RCC, GREF C/O-99 APO, CHIEF ENGINEER H.Q., PROJECT VARTAK, TEZPUR, PIN- 784001.. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, R. NO. 101-A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011. 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY (BORDER ROADS) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE WING 4TH FLOOR SENA BHAWAN DELHI CANTT. NEW DELHI- 110011. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER ROADS HEADQUARTER DGBR SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD NEW DELHI-110011. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PROJECT) VARTAK C/O 99 APO TEZPUR ASSAM PIN-931716

For the appellant (s) : Mr. I. H. Saikia, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.R. Adhikari, CGC –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 08.06.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned Central Government counsel for the respondents/Union of India and others. The present appeal has been filed questioning the judgment dated 05.08.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 4576/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant herein, who is a driver in the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), has claimed for payment of arrears by way of Bhutan Compensatory Allowance, for having been entrusted with the task of driving a carrier vehicle to Bhutan, on and off. The claim of the appellant is based on the policy of the employer to pay compensatory allowance for performing duties in Bhutan. The claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the appellant was never posted in Bhutan, but he was only asked to drive carrier vehicles to and within the territory of Bhutan. This, according to the respondents, was only an extended deployment, which is not similar to foreign duty thereby entitling him to Bhutan Compensatory Allowance, which is a special allowance provided to personnels serving in Bhutan, to compensate higher living cost and hardships. The impugned judgment denying the claim of the appellant cannot be faulted with on any ground whatsoever, except to the extent that the appellant would be entitled for the TA/DA allowances with respect to his sojourn to Bhutan and back to India, while driving the carrier vehicle. Mr. Adhikari, learned Central Government counsel, on instructions, has submitted that whatever TA/DA was payable to the appellant, has already been paid to him. This fact situation is disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that TA/DA has only been paid for 9 (nine) days and not for rest of the days when the appellant had undertaken his duty of driving the carrier vehicle to and within the territory of Bhutan. In the afore-noted facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to close this appeal by directing the appellant to make representation to the respondents regarding his claim for TA/DA allowance for the period when he had driven the carrier vehicle to Bhutan, on and off, which claim shall be verified by the respondents and if, at all, any entitlement is due to the appellant, the same shall be paid to him within a period of eight weeks, to be counted from the date of submission of the representation by the appellant. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

JUDGE CHIEF

JUSTICE Comparing Assistant