The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to House Rent Allowance (HRA) at specified rates based on the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 and Section 33(1) of the Mizoram University Act, 2000, and the need for proactive participation and proper instructions from the respondent authorities to their counsel.

JUDGMENT :

Heard B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Mary Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6.

2. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioners who are 755 in numbers have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities concerned to pay them arrear House Rent Allowance (HRA) @ 20% of the basic pay with effect from 01.09.2008 to 01.07.2017 and @ of 16% with effect from 01.07.2017 onwards. Be it stated herein that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 357 are non-teaching staff of the Mizoram University (MZU) and petitioner Nos. 358 to 548 are teaching staff of MZU. Petitioner Nos. 549 to 668 are the teaching staff of Pachhunga University College (PUC) while petitioner Nos. 669 to 755 are non-teaching staff of PUC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the teaching and nonteaching staff of the erstwhile North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Aizawl Campus were receiving HRA at par with the employees of the NEHU working in Shillong and Kohima, in the State of Meghalaya and Nagaland respectively. He submits that Aizawl, Shillong and Kohima were classified as ‘C’ category cities. However, due to certain special reasons, employees working in these three (3) cities were given HRA at par with the HRA given to cities classified as ‘B-2’ vide Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 (Annexure -9). The learned counsel submits that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993, the Vice Chancellor of NEHU through the Registrar issued a Notification dated 17.05.1994 (Annexure-11) ordering the payment of HRA/CCA at the rate admissible for ‘B-2’ class cities for employees of NEHU posted at Kohima and Aizawl with effect from 01.05.1991. Since then, the employees of NEHU have been getting the benefit of HRA as is given to employees working in ‘B-2’ class cities.

4. The learned counsel submits that with the establishment of the MZU by the Mizoram University Act, 2000 (Act of 2000) which came into force with effect from 25.04.2000, all those employees serving under the erstwhile NEHU Aizawl Campus are deemed to be transferred to the services of the MZU on the same terms and conditions and with same rights and privileges as they would have got under NEHU as per Section 33 (1) of the Act of 2000. The classification of cities for HRA/CCA was reclassified vide Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure-3) by which, instead of the previous classification of cities as ‘A-1’, ‘A’, ‘B-1’, ‘B-2’, ‘C’ and ‘Un-classified’, the new classification was made as ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ category. The HRA admissible for ‘X’ category was 30% of the basic pay plus NPA where applicable. In respect of ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ categories, the admissible HRA was 20% and 10% respectively. The MZU Finance Department had submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, now the Ministry of Education for payment of HRA to the employees of MZU and PUC @ 10% in terms of the Office Memrandum dated 29.08.2008 wherein, Aizawl city was classified as ‘Z’ category. The employees concerned otherwise had all along been enjoying HRA as given to ‘B-2’ category cities or ‘Z’ category (new) in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993. Realizing the mistake, the petitioners through their Service Association approached the MZU authorities by filing representations. The representations were forwarded to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education but vide the impugned Communication dated 29.01.2017, the Ministry wrote back to the MZU that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure did not accept payment of HRA to the employees of the MZU and PUC as given to ‘Y’ class city rate i.e., @ 20% as per the Sixth Pay Commission (CPC). Similarly, the revised rates as per the Seventh CPC i.e., @ 16% was also declined to be paid. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before