AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
“8.1.That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 16.01.2024.
8.2.That the Ld. Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents for payment of license fee at the rate of 10% of their monthly pay as compensation in lieu of rent fee accommodation for the entire period of service rendered by the present applicants during their posting at Kohima, Nagaland in the light of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 passed in O.A No. 19/2020 in the case of Raj Kumar & Others –vs- Union of India & Ors with arrear monetary benefit.
8.3.That the Ld. Tribunal be pleased to declare that the present applicants are legally entitled to payment of Licence Fee at the rate of 10% as compensation in lieu of rent free accommodation w.e.f. the date of actual posting of the present applicants at Kohima, Nagaland while serving at Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau.
8.4.Costs of the application.
8.5.Any other relief(s) to which the applicant is entitled as the Ld. Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”
This Application is made against the impugned memorandum dated 16.01.2024 whereby representations of the applicants claiming license fee @10%, has been rejected by the Respondents.
Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that applicants were appointed on different dates in different capacities in the cadre of Group 'B’, 'C’ and 'D’ under the establishments of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Kohima, Nagaland. They are entitled for license fee at the rate of 10% of monthly pay for the period with effect from the date of actual posting of the present Applicants in Nagaland per month in lieu of Rent Free Accommodation in terms of the O.M. dated 13.11.1987 as well as in terms of the O.M. bearing No. 2/1/2014 E II(B) dated 21.02.2014 and also in the light of the judgment and order dated 06.11.2000 passed in O.A. No. 143/1999 (Shri Krishna Sinha & 267 Others –vs- Union of India & Others), as well as judgment and order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) N,. 830/2013 and also in light of the order passed by the Hon’bIe Supreme Court upholding the Judgment of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8050/2014 vide Order dated 02.07.2014 and also in light of the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2020 passed in O.A. No. 19/2020 in the case of Raj Kumar & Others – vs Union of India & Others.
Earlier, applicants have filed one O.A No. 265/2023 which was disposed of with a direction to consider their representation in the light of the order passed in O.A 46/0019/2020 (Raj Kumar & Ors vs UOI ). Thereafter, the respondents have rejected their claim vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 passed in O. A. No. 19/2020 (Raj Kumar & Ors) has already been implemented in favour of the similarly situated employees. Respondents have not preferred any appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, it has attained finality. Denying similar benefits to the present applicants is arbitrary and the impugned speaking order dated 16.01.2024 is not tenable in the eyes of law. The issue has already been settled following the various decisions of this Tribunal which were upheld by the Hon’bIe Gauhati High Court and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Singha and 267 Others passed in O. A. No. 143/1999 by way of dismissing the S.L.P. (c) No. 8050/2014 vide order dated 08.02.2010. As such, the issue of payment of 10% license fee in lieu of Rent Free Accommodation had already attained finality.
Respondents have stated that the earlier O.A 265/2023, was disposed of at admission stage with direction to consider the representation of the Applicants in light of Order dated 10.12.2020 in O.A. No. 46/19/2020 (Shri Raj Kumar 81 Ors.) As the claim made by the Applicants was not tenable under Govt. of India instructions, in compliance of the Order dated 19.09.2023, same was rejected by issuing a Speaking Order dated 16.01.2024. The applicants are claiming similar benefits with Raj Kumar, however, the Order was implemented under pressing circumstances in order to avoid the Contempt of Court, though the same was also contrary to the Government directions as it was granted solely on the basis of Court’s order and not on the basis of the extant policy, so the same should not be perpetuated, granting undue benefits to all the similarly situated employees.
Respondents have also stated that, as stipulated in MoF OM, in 1987, after accepting the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission, Government in terms of OM bearing No. 11015/4/86.E.II(B) dated 13.11.1987 as well as OM No. 2/1/2014.E.II dated 21.02.2014, decided that licence fee is to be paid at lowest fixed rate and not in terms of percentage. Nowhere it is mentioned in the aforesaid OMs to pay licence fee @ 10%, rather the above OMs stipulates to pay licence fee at flat rates as fixed by Department of Estates. Hence, payment of licence fee @ 10% of monthly pay in lieu of Rent Free Accommodation is not tenable under the existing instructions/rules issued by the Government of India. The same was also communicated to the applicants of OA 46/19/2020 vide SIB Kohima Speaking Order No. K-2/Estt/2020-1971 dated 27.08.2021, which was, however, rejected by the Tribunal. Meanwhile, a contempt petition was filed by the applicants. Since there was hardly any time to contest Contempt Petition, a conscious decision was taken to implement the order dated 10.12.2020 in order to avoid the Contempt of Court, on technical grounds and not on the merit of the case.
As per respondents, CAT Guwahati passed an order in OA No. 143/1999 (Sh Krishna Sinha &ors, Defence Civilian employees) in favour of applicants on 03.11.2000. The Deptt. Of Defence had filed an appeal before Hon'ble High Court by way of WP C No. 1569/2001, which was dismissed by the Court for nonprosecution (non-appearance). Against the said order of High Court, the Deptt. Of Defence moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, Apex Court, vide order dt.08.02.2010, dismissed the leave petition, without going into the merit, on the grounds of delay. It is also stated that, the verdict of even this particular case (OA No. 143/1999) was also based on the earlier judgment passed by CAT Guwahati Nos. 124 & 125 of 1995. These two OAs were also filed by Defence Civilian employees. These cases were primarily related to grant of HRA, SDA, SCA (RL) and not Licence Fee. So they are not similarly situated and does not apply to this instant case.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and materials on record.
It is the case of the applicants that they are seeking benefits of License Fee at the rate of 10% as compensation in lieu of rent free accommodation w.e.f. the date of actual posting of the present Applicants at Kohima, Nagaland while serving at Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau. Similarly situated persons have approached this Tribunal in various original applications and have travelled to Hon’ble High Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court. According to applicants, so many decisions have already been decided regarding the claim of licence fee and claiming benefits in the light of the orders passed in OA No. 143 of 1999 (Shri Krishna Sinha and 267 ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.), OA/129/2010, Judgement of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court dated 21.02.2013 in WP(C) No. 830 of 2013, WP (C) No. 2975/2011, as well as the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) ….CC No (s) 8050/2014 dated 02.07.2014, SLP (C) No. 20073-20076/20.
This Tribunal vide order dated 10.12.2020 in O.A 46/00019/2020 (Raj Kumar & Ors V. UOI&Ors) had passed the following order:
“6.I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and the documents annexed with the O.A. After carefully gone through the arguments as well as documents, it is found that the aforesaid matter is no longer res integra. On identical issue, this Tribunal has decided the matter vide common judgment and order dated 06.11.2000 in OA No. 143 of 1999 (Shri Krishna Sinha and 267 ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.). Relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is being reproduced here as under:-
“3.In the light of the decision rendered by this Tribunal the Application is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay license fee at the rate of 10% of monthly pay with effect from 1.7.1987 or from the actual date of posting in Nagaland whichever is later and continue to pay the same till the compensation is not withdrawn or modified by the Government of India or till Rent free accommodation is not provided.”
7.The decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide order dated 21.02.2013 in WP(C) No. 830 of 2013. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court is also being reproduced here as under:-
“Considering the fact that the decision of this Court, rendered by the order, dated 06.03.2012, passed, in WP(C) No. 2975/2011, as well as the subsequent order, dated 06.03.2012, passed in the Misc. Case, whereby the petitioners were allowed extension of time to comply with the directions, stand dismissed by the Supreme Court, we are clearly of the view that a fresh writ petition challenging the findings which were arrived at, and the directions, which were given, in WP(C) No. 2975/2011, would not lie. Situated thus, we find no option, but to dismiss the writ petition. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, the writ petition stands dismissed.”
8.Against the order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court dated 21.02.2013, the respondents approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) ….CC No (s) 8050/2014 where the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.07.2014 dismissed the said SLP preferred by the respondent authority on the ground of delay as well as on merit.
9.On identical issue of Defence Civilian working in the State of Nagaland has already been settled by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 830 of 2013 (Union of India and another Vs. Shri Bahadur Sonar and Ors.) where the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 21.02.2013 dismissed the said Writ Petition.
10.In view of the above, respectfully following the decisions of this Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and also Hon’ble Supreme Court, I hereby direct the respondents to decide the present issue in accordance with aforesaid precedents after examining the case of the applicants and pay the liscense fees at the rate of 10% compensation per month in lieu of Rent Free Accommodation, from the date as applicable, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, O.A. stands disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs.”
Respondents have not assailed the order dated 10.12.2020 in O.A/19/2020 to the Hon’ble High Court and had implemented the order of this Tribunal and the benefits was granted to the applicants in the above-mentioned O.A, so they are bound by order which had attained finality and the present applicants are also similarly situated and also entitled for the same.
Accordingly, respondents are directed to grant the similar benefits as granted to the applicants in O.A/19/2020, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the above observations and directions, the O.A is disposed of accordingly. No costs.