Rambir Singh vs M/o External Affairs

1 OA No.3738/2017

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

OA No.3738/2017

Order reserved on: 28.09.2026
Order pronounced on: 02.11.2026


Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)


Rambir Singh (Constable)
S/o Sh. Samey Singh,
8300/DAP (PIS No.28030994),
Posted at: 7th Battalion DAP (Delhi Armed Police),
PTS, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017.
Permanent Resident of:
H. No. 2595 Arya Niwas,
(Near Radha Khrisan Mandir), Gali No. 9B,
25 Futa Rasta, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III Extn.,
Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
....Applicant
(None for the applicant)

Versus

1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
New Delhi – 110011

2. Joint Secretary (Adm.)
Ministry of External Affairs
New Delhi – 110011

3. Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
New Delhi - 110011

... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)





SUNITA 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
DUTT

2 OA No.3738/2017

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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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)
th
and as per the recommendations of the 6 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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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
rd
could kindly be forwarded to this Ministry latest by 03 October,
2013 positively.

i) Basic Pay shall be in the scale of Pay Band-I (PB-I).
SUNITA 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
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 2026.11.02
14:54:01+05'30'
DUTT