Denial of Children Education Allowance for unrecognised schools is discriminatory when benefits are extended to other personnel for the same institution.

The applicant, an SDO-II in the Defence Estate Office, Kochi, sought reimbursement of Children Education Allowance (CEA) for her children who attended Naval Kinder Garten (KG) School, Kochi, during 2021-2023

The respondents rejected her claim via several communications (Annexures-A3, A6 to A8, A11, and A12), asserting that the school, managed by the Naval Education Society, was not "recognized" by a government or educational authority as required by the governing Office Memorandum

The applicant alleged invidious discrimination, noting that Naval Officers, Sailors, and Defence Civilians whose children attended the same school were receiving CEA reimbursements

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to CEA for her children studying in a pre-primary institution run by the Naval Education Society which lacks formal recognition from a government educational board

2. Whether the denial of CEA to the applicant constitutes a violation of equality and non-discrimination when other classes of employees under the Ministry of Defence are granted the same benefit for the same institution

The court primarily considered Clause 2(q) of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 17.07.2018 (Annexure-A1), which defines a "recognized school" for CEA purposes as a government or aided/unaided institution recognized by a Central/State/UT administration or University

It further relied on the National Early Child Care Education (ECCE) Policy, 2013, which recognizes pre-primary education holistically and extends CEA benefits to two years prior to the 1st standard, even in the absence of a formal regulatory board for play schools

The Tribunal observed that while the Naval KG School is not formally affiliated with a board, it is managed by the Naval Education Society and maintains a significant student body (approx. 950 students), reflecting public and institutional credibility

The court noted that the PCDA (Navy) Mumbai had already issued instructions (Annexure-A5A) to grant CEA for pre-primary education based on the ECCE Policy 2013, advising that denial for lack of recognition contradicts the spirit of government provisions unless the institution is fraudulent

The court found that the respondents failed to justify the "invidious discrimination" where Naval personnel were reimbursed CEA for the same school while the applicant was denied

The Tribunal emphasized that a benefit granted to one branch of the Defence services cannot be arbitrarily denied to another branch or establishment under the same Ministry

It held that a holistic approach must be taken toward pre-primary education recognition and that the applicant cannot be discriminated against

The respondents were directed to disburse the CEA due to the applicant within three months, failing which the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum