1989SCMR748 (PLP)

"Field Officers on their appointment in Research Institutions for doing research work shall be allowed a Special Research Allowance at the rate of 20 per cent of their basic pay." Subsequently, on 9‑10‑1984, this paragraph was amended by substitution of the word appointment' with the word `posting'. The respondents in these appeals were recruited for appointment in the Research Laboratories or stations maintained by the Agricultural Department of the Provincial Government. Immediately after the Scheme was sanctioned the respondents started drawing the Special Research Allowance as mentioned in Paragraph 20, reproduced above. On 6‑2‑1985, on a reference made by the District Accounts Officer, Multan, the Finance Department issued a clarification to the effect that the Special Research Allowance was not admissible to the research workers but that it was meant only for Field Officers who were posted in research institutions specified by the Finance Department. After issuance of this clarification, the Special Research Allowance was not only withheld from the respondents but they were also asked to refund the amount of the allowance which they had already received. The respondents feeling aggrieved by this direction preferred appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The main' question before the Tribunal was whether the respondents, who were recruited to work in the research institutions, could be described as Field Officers within the meaning of Paragraph 20 of the Scheme. The learned Tribunal answered the question in the affirmative holding that since for the purpose of research the respondents were required to visit Fields to collect data and conduct tests, they were also Field Officers. It also observed that academically the respondents were better equipped than those who according to the Government were eligible to receive the allowance. Accordingly, it accepted the appeals and declared them to be entitled to the allowance. The Government of the Punjab feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the Service Tribunal has appealed to this Court. The contention of the appellant‑Government is that the expression Field Officer has a definite connotation. It refers to the Officers who in the normal course of their duties come in contact with the members of the public; it does not encompass those civil servants who are employed in Research Institutions and Laboratories even though they may have to go out of their Laboratories or Stations to collect data or conduct tests. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, not right in declaring the respondents as Field Officers. It is also contended that the Special Research Allowance was intended to encourage and compensate Officers who were recruited primarily to work in the Fields to undertake research. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, not right in enlarging the scope of Paragraph

20. These submissions undoubtedly are not without force but in view of certain later developments we are not inclined to examine them at any length and give any considered opinion thereon. It appears that the Government of the Punjab m the Finance Department, by Memo. No.FD.PC.2‑1/87, dated 27th July, 1987, on the subject of "Revision of Pay Scales and Fringe Benefits of the Punjab Government Employees (1987)" have again altered their opinion. 1n Para. 11 of the Memorandum, which reads with Research Allowance, it is, inter alia, provided:‑‑ "Research allowance.‑‑(1) 1t has been decided to allow Research Allowance at the rate of 20% of the pay subject to a maximum of Rs.800 p.m. to the employees in BPS‑16 and above, deployed exclusively on research work, both field officers and those employed exclusively for the research organisations, in lieu of the existing Special Research Allowance." (Underlining is ours) Thus the distinction being emphasised before us between field officers and employees in research institutions and laboratories has been negatived by the Government itself and the situation that was obtaining before the clarification issued by the Finance Department in 1985 has been re‑iterated. Thus, the issue now in these cases boils down basically to the question of the recovery of the research allowance paid to the respondents during the interragnum, when the Rules were being interpreted in a manner similar to that which the Government has now ultimately laid down itself in 1987 in the Revision of Pay Scales and Fringe Benefits Order, 1987, but this interpretation was not accepted by the Finance Department. We do not think, in these circumstances, that these appeals have any particular merit. They also do not involve substantial questions of law of public A importance which might attract this Court's jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. AA./G‑160/S Appeals dismissed.