CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CORAM:

Reserved on 15.01.2026 Pronounced on 21.0 1.2026 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

Ramahari Sahu, aged about 65 years, son of Shri Bipra Charan Sahu, Retd. as FLA, ICMR and permanent resident of At-Plot No. L/84, st

1 Floor, Chhend Colony, PO/PS- Chhend, Rourkela, Dist- Sndargarh, Odisha, PIN-

769015. VERSUS ……Applicant

1. Union of India, represented through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, At- Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-

110001.

2. Director General & Secretary, Department of Health Research, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, PIN-

110029.

3. Director, National Institute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi, PIN-

110077.

4. Administrative Officer, National Institute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi. PIN-110077.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel RAVI KUMAR For the respondents : Ms. R.L.Biswal, Counsel O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Facts remain that in the afternoon of 29.02.2020 the applicant, Sri Ramahari Sahu, while working as Field Laboratory Attendant in ICMR, retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. In the pleadings, at some places, it is stated that an amount of Rs. 3,19,514/- and at some places an amount of Rs. 3,62,223/- was withheld from his DCRG on the ground that he while working at Rourkela under the ICMR occupied quarters of SAIL for 12 years and 7 months [from 12.06.2004 to 31.12.2005 and from 01.09.2008 to 31.08.2019] and, at the same time drew HRA from ICMR which is contrary to Rules. According to the Applicant, such withholding of amount from his DCRG drives him into starvation due to financial difficulties and, that drawal of HRA from ICMR cannot be faulted with when he was paying the necessary rent and other allied charges to the SAIL authority as per the agreement made with him with the SAIL. The respondents have filed their counter objecting and contesting the case of the applicant on the same grounds as OA Nos. 349/2024 and 351/2024 praying for dismissal of this OA. Heard . Perused the records.

2S. t areT h eD edcoiscitsr ineet oNfo np reQcueedietan t Miso vbearseed on the Latin maxim: " ", in other words, to maintain the fairness, predictability, certainty, uniformity and stability in judicial decisions, the Court/Tribunal should stand by what has been decided and do not vary the decision unless, it is found on examination of any distinguished facts and law in both the cases. It is also a well settled principle of law that where an employee, aggrieved by an action of the government department, approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be exteAnmderdit tLhael bBeenrerfyi t vwsi.t hCouotl lethceto nr eeodf fCore nthtreaml Etox cgios eto, cNoeuwrt . D[Seeleh i and Others , (1975) 4 SCC 7L1t4. ]C, owl.h Sicuhp rpitari nCchipalned ehla -sv sa- lUson iobne eonf rIneditiear aatnedd ointh ethrse, case of

2024 INSC 942. We find that the facts and issues involved in the case in hand, is akin the facts and law involved in OA Nos. 349/2024 and 351/2024 and, it is apt to quote the observation and direction made in OA No. 349/2024 (Durga Ma“3d. h…ab… P…ad…h i vHs eUnOceI ,& a cOcrosr)d iansg utno dheimr;, there is no delay and, in argumendo, even if there is any delay, this being a recurring cause of action, delay should not stand on the way for the relief, unlike the present case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669. We have examined the matter, keeping in mind the facts and law stated above, and do not find any merit to uphold the stand point of the respondents that this OA being hit by limitation is liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties, we have perused the records.

5. In the given circumstances stated above vis a vis the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court