Pensionary allowances are inadmissible to officers holding concurrent charge of a post at time of retirement.

The applicant, a 1976 batch IPS officer of the Karnataka Cadre, was promoted to the grade of Director General of Police (DGP) in 2010.

On 31.01.2011, he was placed in "concurrent charge" as the Head of Police Force (DGIGP) in addition to his regular duties.

He held this concurrent charge until 06.07.2011.

He superannuated on 31.07.2011 while posted as DGP, CID, not holding the Head of Police Force charge at the time of retirement.

The State issued orders in 2015 and 2016 sanctioning servant allowance, telephone charges, and medical reimbursement for retired Heads of Police Force.

The applicant’s claim for these benefits was rejected by the Government on 10.01.2022 and 04.07.2022 on the grounds that he held the post only as a "concurrent charge" and did not retire from that specific position.

1. Whether a retired officer who held the post of Head of Police Force as a "concurrent charge" or "additional charge" is entitled to the special allowances sanctioned for retired Heads of Police Force

2. Whether the applicant can claim the benefit based on the principle of parity with another officer (Shri S.N. Borkar) under Article 14 of the Constitution

Government Orders (DPAR 82 SPP 2015) which limited benefits to "retired Directors Generals of Police (Head of Police Force)"

Supreme Court precedent in K. Sreedhar Rao v. Union of India (2019), which established that an "Acting" or "concurrent" charge holder is entitled to salary/perks only during the tenure of service and cannot claim post-retiral benefits (like specific pensions or allowances) attached to the higher post.

Article 14 is a positive concept; illegality cannot be used to claim parity, and a "wrong order" in favor of one person does not entitle another to the same illegal benefit (Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh (2006) and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010)).

The Tribunal observed that the governing circulars (Annexure-A6) specifically intended the allowances for those who held the substantive post of Head of Police Force and retired from it.

Following K. Sreedhar Rao, the Tribunal reasoned that while an officer in a concurrent charge might receive the salary of that post during their tenure, they do not acquire a substantive right to post-retirement perks associated with that specific office.

Regarding the applicant’s plea of parity with Shri S.N. Borkar, the Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to produce the supporting order for the cited officer.

Furthermore, even if such a benefit were wrongly granted to another, it would constitute a legal error that cannot be perpetuated under the guise of equality.

(1) No, concurrent charge holders are not entitled to retiral allowances reserved for substantive retirees of that post; (2) No, parity cannot be claimed based on alleged previous illegal or irregular orders.

The Original Application was dismissed, and parties were ordered to bear their own costs.