Rambir Singh vs M/o External Affairs on 2 November 2026

ORDER

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “i. To call the relevant records of the applicant and his representation rejected by the impugned order and set- aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 bearing No. Q/PE/6618/17/2014 whereby the Respondent No. 1 & 2 discriminately and in violation of 6th CPC Recommendations and CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 as well as of Article 14 & 16 of the Indian Constitution have rejected the claim of compensation of the applicant. and;

ii. Direct the respondents to pay the compensation of US $ 8480 in equivalent Indian Rupees which is a sum total of balance Foreign Allowance from September, 2014 to June, 2015, HRA Rs. 33270/- from September, 2014 to June, 2015 and over time duty US $ 8100/- in equivalent India Rupees from September, 2014 to June, 2015 or any other equivalent compensation in lieu to the applicant. and;

iii. Direct the Respondents to pay the appropriate cost of the present application to the applicant who have suffered due to the wrongful acts of the respondents and;

iv. Such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Applicant.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 On 06.09.2013 the Respondent No. 2 issued a notification bearing No. Q/BS-II/813/7/2013-SA-1445 thereby asking for a list of not more than 03 suitable Head Constables/Constables with certain pre-requisites in order to draw a panel of suitable Head Constables/Constables (Exe./GD) from Central and State Police Organizations to

SUNITA DUTT

3 OA No.3738/2017

serve as Security Assistants, on deputation basis, in the Bureau of Security, Ministry of External Affairs. 2.2 The applicant being Delhi Police personnel applied for the said deputation and thereafter was selected by the Respondent No. 2 for the said deputation. He was relieved from Delhi Police and joined Bureau of Security (BOS), Ministry of External Affairs – respondent No.2 on 04.02.2014 as a Security Assistant on deputation. Respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 02.04.2014 addressed to The Head of Chancery, Embassy of India, Damascus regarding appointment of applicant. Vide Office

Order

dated 22.08.2014, the applicant was relieved from BOS to join Embassy of India, Damascus, Syria. 2.3 Thereafter, the applicant was transferred to Embassy of India, Damascus, Syria as an India Based Security Assistant and on 15.09.2014 he joined the mission. 2.4 He made a representation to Foreign Secretary, New Delhi requesting to revise Foreign Allowance for Security Assistants posted abroad. He received a reply on 05.05.2015 from respondent No.1 whereby it was informed that the amount of foreign allowance paid to an officer is linked to the post the said officer is holding and not to his Grade Pay. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted representation on 25.05.2015 to respondent No.2 ventilating his grievances with

SUNITA DUTT

4 OA No.3738/2017

request to correct the anomalies. It is claimed by the applicant that as his grievances were not considered, the applicant having no option requested respondent No.2 to repatriate him back to his parent unit. Meanwhile, he was repatriated back to Delhi Police, his parent unit from EOI Damascus, Syria on 31.08.2015.

2.5 On 15.06.2016 the applicant made a representation to respondent No.2 through proper channel stating therein that he was posted in MEA from 04.02.2014 to 31.08.2015 on deputation from Delhi Police and joined the Mission on 15.09.2014, thereby ventilating his grievances and requesting for release of suitable compensation from the Embassy of India, Damascus, Ministry of External Affairs.

2.6 The respondent Nos.1 & 2, however, have passed the impugned order, whereby, they have rejected the claim of the applicant for compensation of US $8480 in equivalent Indian Rupees which is a sum total of balance Foreign Allowance from September, 2014 to June, 2015, HRA Rs.33,270/- from September, 2014 to June, 2015 and over time duty US$ 8100/- in equivalent Indian Rupees from September, 2014 to June, 2015 or any other equivalent compensation in lieu thereof. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant OA, seeking the aforementioned relief.

SUNITA DUTT

5 OA No.3738/2017

3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, to which the applicant has filed his rejoinder.

4. Submissions by learned counsel for the applicants 4.1 Referring to the pleadings in the OA, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been discriminated by the respondents in the matter of granting him less allowances than what is legitimately due to the applicant during his deputation as India Based Security Assistant in the Embassy of India, Damascus from September 2014 till June 2015. The discrimination against the present applicant has occurred in the following manner:

(i) Less Foreign Exchange allowance than what should have been the applicant’s due’

(ii) Non-payment of overtime for performance of duties more than the normal 8 hours on a particular day,

(iii) Non-payment of conveyance allowance, and

(iv) Non-payment of HRA for retaining the family members in India during the applicant’s stay at Damascus, Syria. 4.2 The learned counsel for the applicant refers to paragraph 4.17 of the OA where the applicant has calculated the amount to which he was entitled to be paid, which was

SUNITA DUTT

6 OA No.3738/2017

not actually paid to him. For better appreciation, Paragraph 4.17 of the OA is extracted here: “4.17 On the basis of above facts and circumstances in the said representation and earlier request through proper channel, the applicant being entitled for the compensation as under:

1. For the Foreign allowance from September 2014 to June 2015 @

$2015 - $1167 = $848 per month $848 x 10 month = $8480

2. For HRA from September 2014 to June 2015

Rs 3327 x 10 = Rs 33270/-

3. For overtime duties from September 2014 to June 2015

6 hours per day on an average which means 180 hours per month. @ $4.5 per hour makes 180 x $4.5 = $810 per month.

For 10 months: $810 x 10 = $8100

The Total is $8480 + $8100 = $16,580.00 converted at the bank rate applicable.

Plus HRA INR 33270/-“

4.3 The basis of claiming higher foreign allowance at $2015 than at $1167 per month has been referred in the grounds under Paragraphs 5D to 5I of the OA. The learned counsel for the applicant revisited the factual matrix of the case and states that the applicant was working as Constable in Delhi Police before being deputed to the Bureau of Security, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. Subsequently, the respondents posted him as IBSA to the Embassy of India at Damascus, Syria from September 2014 till June 2015. The

SUNITA DUTT

7 OA No.3738/2017

applicant was holding a position in Delhi Police equivalent to UDC in the Central Secretariat before his deputation. As per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the applicant was entitled to pay and allowances equivalent to UDC in Central Secretariat. Other employees who were holding posts equivalent to UDC in Indian Embassy at Damascus were paid Foreign Allowance at the rate $2015 whereas the applicant was paid monthly foreign allowance at $1167. Moreover, the foreign allowance fixed for the Security Assistants is $1167 per month was not commensurate with the Grade pay of Rs.2000/- per month which the applicant was getting. Hence, there was not only discrimination vis-a-vis similarly placed employees in the Embassy but also the applicant, as Security Assistant, was not paid foreign allowance commensurate with the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-. 4.4 The learned counsel for the applicant further drew attention to Paragraphs 5J, 5K and 5L of the OA where the applicant has stated that the applicant, as Security Assistant, was working more than 40 hours a week (the applicant claims that he was working 77 to 168 /192 hours a week) and as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC (Chapter 4.5.5) two days’ of weekly off, as well as overtime at par with the drivers and chauffers of Indian Embassy, who were getting over time at $4.5 per hour of over time.

SUNITA DUTT

8 OA No.3738/2017

4.5 The applicant was staying at a place which was 1.5 kms away from the Indian Embassy. Hence, he was entitled for conveyance allowance as per rules. 4.6 The applicant was paid House Rent allowances during his period of deputation to the Delhi Office of the Bureau of Security, Ministry of External Affairs. However, when he was posted to the Indian Embassy at Damascus, Syria, the applicant was not paid HRA for maintaining his family at Delhi, Damascus being a non-family station. The applicant was discriminated vis-a-vis other employees in the Indian Embassy at Damascus. HRA/Government Accommodation in Delhi was given to all the staff posted in Embassy of India at Damascus except the IBSAs. 4.7 In view of the above, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the Respondents have adopted a discriminatory policy towards the applicant vis-a-vis similarly placed employees posted in Indian Embassy at Damascus thereby violating the principles enunciated under Articles 14 and 16 of Indian Constitution.

5.

Submissions

by the learned counsel for the respondents

5.1 The learned counsel for the Respondents referred to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents on 12.01.2018 and the additional affidavit filed on 22.05.2018.

SUNITA DUTT

9 OA No.3738/2017

5.2 He counters the averment by the learned counsel for the applicant and contention of the applicant in his OA regarding Foreign Allowance stating that the foreign allowance is not granted as per the Grade Pay (the applicant was getting Grade pay of Rs.2000/- p.m.) but on the post held by him. In other words, foreign allowance is linked to the Local Functional Rank, not on Grade Pay. The applicant has been paid Foreign Allowance as entitled for IBSA posted in Indian Embassies. Once the applicant has accepted the pay scale and Grade pay when he joined as Security Assistant at the Bureau of Security, Ministry of External Affairs at Delhi, his pay scales and Grade pay in the parent cadre has no basis for claiming higher Grade Pay and Foreign Allowance based on such pay. Moreover, the applicant cannot claim parity with the employees holding the posts of UDC posted in Indian embassy, Damascus, as he was not similarly placed. He has been paid Foreign Allowances as per the entitlement to IBSAs in Indian Embassies abroad, as per IFS (PCLA) Rules. There is no discrimination, as he cannot claim parity with employees dissimilarly placed than him. 5.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further states that as a security assistant his duties were defined as per Ministry of External Affairs letter Dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure-A38). Accordingly, the duty hours during office hours and non- office hours defined. The applicant has been assigned duties

SUNITA DUTT

10 OA No.3738/2017

as per the said circular. He has not challenged this circular and hence, he is not entitled any extra compensation or overtime. 5.4 Learned counsel for the respondents states that it was wrongly stated by the applicant that his residential accommodation was 1.5 km away from the Indian embassy. Referring to Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit dated 12.01.2018, the learned counsel for the respondents states that it was only 750 metres from the Indian Embassy. This distance does not qualify for conveyance allowance. It is as good as adjacent to the embassy. He lived in chancery for most of his tenure in Damascus. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for conveyance allowance. 5.5 Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the applicant was provided Government owned Residential accommodation at Damascus and hence, he was not entitled to any HRA.

6.

Analysis

6.1 The averments by learned counsel for the applicant and the grounds mentioned in the OA for seeking relief in respect of Foreign Allowance are based on the principle of equivalency of post held by the applicant in his parent department, i.e. Delhi Police prior to his deployment as IBSA at Indian Embassy at Damascus, Syria. The applicant has further

SUNITA DUTT

11 OA No.3738/2017

drawn the equivalence with the UDC rank officials of MEA posted at Damascus who were getting higher foreign allowance. 6.2 The aforementioned contention by the applicant and his counsel is not acceptable as the applicant accepted the terms and conditions of his deputation from Delhi Police to the Bureau of Security, Ministry of External Affairs at Grade pay of Rs 2000/ and further accepted the posting as IBSA at Damascus with the full knowledge of the perks and allowance that goes with such posting. Further he has given an undertaking (Annexure -R2) that he accepted the pay scale and grade pay for the entire period of his deputation as Security Assistant in MEA. 6.3 Annexure-A3 mentions the terms and conditions while seeking appropriate Delhi Police personnel for deployment as Security Assistants in Bureau of Security, Ministry of External affairs. For better appreciation, the relevant portions of the said circular are extracted hereunder: “This Ministry proposes to draw a panel of suitable Head Constables/Constables (Exe./GD) from Central and State Police Organizations to serve as Security Assistant, on deputation basis in the Bureau of Security, Ministry of External Affairs for a minimum period of five years. Selected candidates will be required to serve in India and also in Indian Missions/Posts abroad.

2. We shall be grateful, if a list of not more than 03 suitable Head Constables/Constables with the following pre-requisites could kindly be forwarded to this Ministry latest by 03rd October, 2013 positively.

i) Basic Pay shall be in the scale of Pay Band-I (PB-I).

SUNITA DUTT

12 OA No.3738/2017

ii) Grade Pay should not exceed Rs.2000/-, however, candidates with higher Grade Pay i.e. Rs.2400/- can be considered provided they bring an NOC from their Cadre Controlling Authority conveying No Objection to serve on a post having lower Grade Pay. This must be brought at the time of interview.”

6.4 He accepted the pay scale and grade pay. Again, for better appreciation, the said undertaking is reproduced below: “UNDERTAKING I _______________________ [now Security Assistant) s/o ______________________ of _________________________ after selection, joined in BOS-II, Ministry of External Affairs on ______________ in the scale of pay of Rs. 5200-20200/- (PB-I). OR I, Rambir Singh Constable (now Security Assistant) s/o Sh. Samey Singh of Delhi Police, presently on deputation to the Ministry w.e.f. 04.02.2014 (A/N), do hereby exercise my option to draw my pay as admissible in, my parent department i.e. Rs. 8760/- Grade Pay Rs. 2000/-, Total Rs.=10760/- on the date of my joining the MEA on deputation as Security Assistant.

2. I hereby solemnly affirm that my pay be fixed in the above- mentioned scale of pay. I fully understand the conditions of such deputation and in view of scale of -ray given to Security Assistants in the MEA will freezes at Rs. 20200/-. I have no objection, if, my basic pay is freeze at Rs. 20200/- and no further increment is granted during my entire deputation period in the MEA. I will not claim any payment in this regard from Govt. of India after my relief from MEA to my parent department. I am fully aware of the facts that I have opted for the post of Security Assistant on deputation basis in the scale of pay, as mentioned above. Sd/- Signature Name: RAMBIR SINGH Rank: Constable/Security Assistant”

6.5 Perusal of both Annexure-A 3 and Annexure -R2 shows that the applicant had accepted the terms and conditions of the deputation including Grade Pay and likely posting in an

SUNITA DUTT

13 OA No.3738/2017

Indian Embassy abroad. After accepting the terms of deputation and willingly furnishing undertaking to accept such terms, the applicant is prohibited to claim foreign exchange at par with employees who were getting higher Grade Pay than ISBAs. Moreover, the rate of Foreign Allowance, as it has been succinctly brought out by the respondents in their counter affidavit and additional affidavit, is not determined by the grade pay (i.e. Rs.2000/- for the applicant) but on Functional Rank held at the local level. The applicant has failed to produce any Rules, Guidelines governing Foreign Allowance which entitles him to a higher scale than what has been granted to him. He has not challenged the said circular nor has objected to the undertaking.

6.6 As regards conveyance allowances, the applicant has failed to rebut the assertion by the respondents that he was residing at a place adjacent to the Indian Embassy at a distance of 750 meters away from the Indian Embassy and such distance does not entitle him for conveyance allowance. The applicant has not brought out any rules, regulations or government instructions which entitle him conveyance allowances under such circumstances.

SUNITA DUTT

14 OA No.3738/2017

6.7 As regards the claim of the applicant for compensation for not granting him days off and payment of over time, the averments by both parties are inconclusive to arrive at any definite conclusion. The duties and responsibilities of Security Guards have been detailed at Annexure-A38. Perusal of the same does not mention any off day in lieu of the continuous working in absence of other Security Guards nor any compensation for extra hours of work. The applicant has not challenged the said circular, which, the respondents claim was prevalent for the period of the applicant’s tenure at Damascus.

6.8 The applicant claims payment of HRA for maintaining the family of the applicant at Delhi while he was posted at a non-family station at Damascus. The applicant has contended that other staff of MEA posted at Damascus was getting such benefits. Such staff was allowed to retain government accommodation at Delhi or in case they were not allotted any government accommodation, they were granted HRA as per their entitlement at Delhi. The applicant has categorically mentioned this in paragraph 4.13 of the OA. The Respondents have not denied such assertion in their counter affidavit dated 12.01.2018 nor in their Additional affidavit dated 22.05.2018. In view of this, it is inferred that the fact that other staff posted in Indian Embassy at Damascus were

SUNITA DUTT

15 OA No.3738/2017

allowed to retain government accommodation at Delhi or if they were not allotted government accommodation in Delhi for their family members, they were paid HRA. It is also admitted that the applicant has not been paid any HRA for maintenance of his family at Delhi for the period he served at Damascus. To that extent, the respondents have discriminated against the applicant vis-à-vis other staff members posted at Damascus.

6.9 This Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2026 sought clarification from the respondents regarding various allowances including HRA for the staff posted in non-family stations like Damascus for maintaining the family at Delhi. The Respondents vide their affidavit dated 01.09.2026 have clarified in paragraph-4 as under: “4. That the Ld. Tribunal has directed the respondent Ministry to clarify as to whether the officials of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), who are posted in the Indian Embassies or High Commissions abroad and are provided with fully furnished official accommodation, are also entitled to receive House Rent Allowance (HRA) for the maintenance of their family residing in India. It is submitted that generally, officials of the Ministry posted abroad and provided with Government accommodation are not paid HRA. At the time relevant to the present case, in respect of Mission/Post declared as non-family stations, grant of HRA was not automatic but was governed by approvals issued by Department of Expenditure (DoE) from time to time in respect of specific Mission/Post. During the applicant’s tenure at Damacus (2014-15), the Station was classified as Non-Family Station. However, HRA was not admissible to officials posted there under the administrative practice prevailing at the relevant time. Payment of HRA to officials posted in Damacus was only approved by DoE in September, 2020 prospectively.

SUNITA DUTT

16 OA No.3738/2017

5. That further the Ld. Tribunal directed the respondents to place on record the relevant guidelines, rules or policy issued by the Ministry of External Affairs governing the said entitlement. It is submitted that a true copy of Department of Expenditure I.d. Note No.3/1/2019-E.II (B) dated 24.09.2020 is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure R-1.”

6.10 Perusal of Annexure R-1 to the affidavit of Respondents on 01.09.2026 shows that the respondents have allowed payment of HRA to the Indian Based officials posted in Embassy of Damascus which are considered non-family stations. The Department of Expenditure has clarified this position vide their letter dated 24.09.2020 and stated that such HRA is admissible from prospective date. 6.11 When other staff posted in Indian Embassy at Damascus were granted HRA/accommodation at Delhi to maintain their families at Delhi while posted to a non-family station like Damascus, it is arbitrary and discriminatory on the part of the respondents in not granting such benefits to the present applicant. Determining a cut-off date of 24.09.2020 is arbitrary and sans any logic. The additional affidavit says that it requires administrative approval of Department of Expenditure. This approach also lacks any rationale as to why the benefits are granted on a ‘case-to- case’ basis. Subsequently, it has been approved for all such staff w.e.f. 24.09.2020 by the respondents.

SUNITA DUTT

17 OA No.3738/2017

7.

Conclusion

7.1 In view of the above analysis, the OA is partly allowed. The applicant is entitled to get HRA for his tenure as IBSA at Damascus, a non- family station, as per the scale of HRA he was getting from the Respondents while he was posted at the Bureau of Security, MEA at Delhi as a Security Assistant. 7.2 The Respondents are directed pay the HRA to the applicant as per the scale mentioned at 7.1 along with interest at applicable GPF rates for the period when such HRA was due till actual payment, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8. No order as to costs.

9. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Rajveer Singh Verma)

(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (J)

Member (A)

‘SD’

SUNITA DUTT