Shri H Lalduhsaka & Ors. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The applicants by way of this O.A. have assailed the arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondents in denying grant of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the applicants at ‘Y’ category city rate as per OM dated 07.07.2017.

Sri Anirban Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants were initially recruited as Junior Statistical Officer. They were subsequently transferred to Aizawl, Mizoram and presently they are serving at National Statistics Office (Field Operations Division), Regional Office, Aizawl. The issue involved in this O.A. pertains to grant of House Rent Allowance @ ‘Y’ Class cities as has been granted to other similarly situated individuals. As per Sri Chakraborty, similarly situated employees of the respondent department posted in Kohima, Nagaland came up for adjudication before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 230/2004 (Annexure-A/3) where this Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2005 directed the respondents to consider the question of applicability of the Clause 3 of O.M. dated 03.10.1997 by which the Central Govt. Employees working in the State of Nagaland were made entitled to draw the rates of the existing classification until further orders which is applicable to ‘B’ class cities. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court where the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 23.12.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 1035/2007 (Annexure-A/4) upheld the decision of this Tribunal. Against the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, an SLP (C) CC13260/2010 was preferred which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure-A/5).

Sri Chakraborty pleads that the applicants are identically placed with the successful applicants in O.A. No. 282/2013 (decided on 03.02.2015), 378/2019 (decided on 25.11.2021) 381/2000 and 146/2019. The learned counsel pointed out that in the cornerstone judgment of O.A. No. 282/2013, this Tribunal held that employees stationed under identical territorial parameters cannot be subjected to a differential and inferior bracket of HRA (8%) when their counterparts are receiving the upgraded rate of 20% / 16%. It is argued that once a set of employees has been granted financial relief up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the benefit must automatically expand to all similarly situated employees without forcing each batch into protracted litigation.

Sri V.K. Bhatra, learned Sr. CGSC for the respondents has submitted that as per O.M. No. 2/5/2014 E.II (B) dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure R- I) effective from 01.04.2015 and O.M. No. 2/5/2017-E.II (B) dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure R- II) effective from 01.07.2017 issued by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, all the places situated in the jurisdiction of Mizoram are entitled for HRA @ Z class cities and accordingly the same are being paid to the instant applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants are not eligible to get benefit of HRA @ ‘Y’ class cities. The HRA is given as per the recommendation of the Pay Commission. As per Sri Bhatra, neither, 6^th CPC nor 7^th CPC has made any specific classification for grant of HRA @ 'Y' category in respect of the cities falling under the jurisdiction of Mizoram. Further, various judgments of this relied upon by the applicants does not pertain to the existing norms effected by the DOE OMs No. 2/5/2014-E.II (B) dated 21.07.2015 and O.M. 2/5/2017-E.II (B) dated 07.07.2017 and thus, the applicants are not entitled to get the benefit of higher HRA as prayed in their application.

I have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before me and orders/judgments relied upon.

It is noted that similarly situated employees working under the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Government of India, Kohima, Nagaland had approached before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 230 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 16.12.2005 by directing the respondents to ascertain the rate applicable to ‘B’ class cities as per the 4^th Pay Commission report. Further ordered that if, on verification, it is found that the applicants were being paid at the rates applicable to ‘B’ Class cities as per the 4^th Pay Commission report sanctioned by the Government, then, there shall be no question of any recovery. The Department challenged the order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by filing WP(C) No. 1035/2007 and the said WP(C) was ultimately dismissed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide order dated 23.12.2009 upholding the order of this Tribunal dated 16.12.2005. The Department thereafter, preferred an SLP being No. CC 13260/2010 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 01.09.2010 by giving finality to the order passed by this Tribunal on 16.12.2005 in O.A. No. 230 of 2004.

It is relevant to point out that though the Department in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2005 passed in O.A. No. 230 of 2004, granted ‘B’ class cities to the applicants in O.A. No. 230 of 2004, but they did not extend the said benefit to the other similarly situated employees of the Government.

I have also perused the various orders passed by this Tribunal in case of similarly situated individuals which were implemented by the respondent department by granting revised HRA.

Since this Tribunal had laid down the principle regarding fixation of pay and parity, the respondents ought to have followed those principles while fixing the HRA at par with other similarly situated persons. Instead they forced the applicants to approach this Tribunal. This Tribunal also categorically observed that “if the applicants are found to be similarly situated, the benefit of aforesaid judgment be extended by granting benefit of HRA @ ‘Y’ class city i.e. 20% of the Basic Pay to the applicants with all consequential benefits.”

I have given my thoughtful consideration that the matter where this Tribunal already passed order in O.A. Nos. 230/2004 which is upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court. Once a matter is finalized by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, no further interpretation is permissible to make the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court infructuous.

Keeping in view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to examine the individual service claims of the present applicants. If the applicants are found to be similarly situated to the individuals protected under the aforesaid orders (Supra), they shall be granted the exact same HRA benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in case of anyone of the applicant is found to be not entitled, a detailed speaking order shall be issued by them in this regard.

With the above directions, O.A. stands disposed of. Pending M.A., if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.