IMPORTANT POINT
Central Government employees in the same city must receive uniform House Rent Allowance benefits, preventing discrimination based on department classifications.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.

1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CAT’), Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No.231/2019, whereby the CAT has disposed of the said original application filed by the respondents herein.

2. The CAT in the impugned order has directed the respondents (petitioners herein) to extend the benefit, which was extended to the applicants in O.A. Nos.381/2000 and 267/2017, to the applicants (respondents herein) and grant consequential benefits within four months of receipt of certified copy of this order after verifying their period of posting in Aizawl .

3. The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to grant of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the Central Government employees working in the office of
the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau at Aizawl, Mizoram. The respondents herein being the employees of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau at Aizawl, filed O.A. No.231/2019 before the CAT raising a grievance that they were getting HRA at the rate applicable to the cities classified as ‘C’ class cities whereas they were entitled to HRA applicable to the ‘B’ class cities. The petitioners placed reliance on the earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Gauhati High Court as well as the CAT and made a prayer that they may be granted the benefit of HRA applicable to ‘B’ class cities.

It appears that prior to filing of O.A. No.231/2019, the respondents herein preferred O.A. No.395/2018 before the CAT challenging the Memorandum dated 17.09.2018 and the said original application was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.2018 directing the respondents (petitioners herein) to dispose of the last pending representations filed on behalf of the applicants (respondents herein) with the further direction that whatever the decision would be arrived at by the respondent authorities, the same should be reasoned and speaking and would be communicated to the applicants.

Pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the CAT in O.A. No.395/2018, the petitioner department passed the order dated 11.04.2019, which was annexed as Annexure- A-2 to the O.A No.231/2019. Being aggrieved with the said order, the respondents filed the O.A. No.231/2019 challenging the validity of the said order as well as the Memorandum dated 17.09.2018, whichwas annexed as Annexure- A-1 to O.A. No.231/2019.

The CAT, after considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, disposed of the O.A. No.231/2019 vide the impugned order dated 02.05.2023. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 02.05.2023 are reproduced hereunder:

“15. We have heard Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R. Hazarika, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and perused the records.

16. It is noted that as per the applicants, different departments of the Central Government had paid the HRA @ ‘B’ class city rates by extending the benefit of the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2002 passed in O.A. No. 381/2000 (Annexure-17) as well as Order dated 19.09.2017 passed in O.A. No. 044/267/2017 (Annexure A/7), which was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court .

17. It is further noted that in para (ii) of the impugned Speaking Order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure A/2), the respondents have admitted that 697 Central Government employees, working in various departments had approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 381/2000, wherein different departments were impleaded as respondents and the benefits of ‘B’ class city rates were extended to those applicants only and since the present applicants were not part of the said O.A., therefore, said benefit is not applicable to them.

18. It is the cardinal principle of law that classification of any city should be one and same for all Central Government employ