AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
The applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing the instant Original Application seeking directions to the respondent authorities to grant them their statutory House Rent Allowance (HRA) allocations in accordance with the revised classifications of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions (CPC), which they allege have been wrongfully withheld or underpaid by the department.
Sri S. Nath, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are regular employees under various CBIC formations in Dimapur and Kohima, stationed within a geographical territory classified as a qualified urban agglomeration/city area under the relevant Ministry of Finance Office Memorandums (O.M.). Under the 6th CPC regime, cities and towns were classified into 'X', 'Y', and 'Z' categories for the purpose of granting HRA. Based on the population metrics of their place of posting, the applicants fell under the category entitled to HRA @ 20% of their basic pay. Following the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations via Ministry of Finance notifications in 2017, the HRA rates were revised to 24%, 16%, and 8% respectively. Accordingly, the applicants' station qualified them for HRA @ 16%. Despite clear statutory mandates and circulars, the respondents either failed to upgrade the applicants' HRA percentages or applied an inferior rate, leading to an extended and recurring financial loss. The counsel emphasized that allowances are an integral component of an employee’s salary framework and cannot be denied through administrative omission.
The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are identically placed with the successful applicants in O.A. No. 282/2013 (decided on 03.02.2015), O.A. No. 02/2016 (decided on 08.01.2016), O.A. No. 346/2017 (decided on 16.05.2025), O.A. No. 309/2023 (decided on 16.05.2025), and O.A. No. 361/2023 (decided on 27.06.2025). 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 Nagaland 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, 6th CPC nor 7th CPC has made any specific classification for grant of HRA @ 'Y' category in respect of the cities falling under the jurisdiction of Nagaland. 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.
We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before us and orders/judgments relied upon.
Upon careful perusal of the facts, this Tribunal notes that the core issue rests on factual parity with historical orders. Consequently, this Tribunal does not need to delve into further intricate details regarding the baseline applicability of the claims across the cited batch of past cases (O.A. No. 282/2013, O.A. No. 02/2016, O.A. No. 346/2017, O.A. No. 309/2023, and O.A. No. 361/2023).
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.