Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9974
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Jagat Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pr Accountant General Arunchal Pradesh Itanagar – Respondent
Original Application No. 045/00185/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri S. Choudhury
For the Respondents: Shri R. Hazarika
Administrative authorities must grant parity in benefits to similarly situated employees based on judicial precedents or provide a reasoned, speaking order justifying the denial of such benefits.
Headnote:The applicants, employees of the Office of the Accountant General, Arunachal Pradesh, seek the benefit of House Rent Allowance (HRA) at 'B' class city rates for their posting in Itanagar, citing parity with similarly situated employees in previous litigations including O.A. No. 381/2000 and subsequent affirmations by the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court. The applicants contend that the denial of such benefits violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The primary issue is whether the applicants are entitled to HRA at 'B' class city rates despite the respondents' contention that Itanagar is classified as a 'Z' category city under the 7th CPC and Ministry of Finance guidelines. The court reasoned that since similar issues have been previously decided in favor of other employees, the respondents must either extend the same benefits to the present applicants if they are similarly situated or provide a reasoned and speaking order explaining the distinctions. With the above direction, O.A. stands disposed of.
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of HRA @ 'B' class city rate with arrear monetary benefit from the date of actual posting of the individual applicants at ltanagar in the light of the judgment and order dated 12.04.2002 passed in O.A. No. 381/2000 in the case of similarly situated employees of All India Radio with immediate effect.
8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to consider the application submitted by the applicants for payment of HRA at the rate applicable to "B" class rates.
8.3 Costs of the application.
8.4 Any other relief (s) to which the applicant is entitled as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
Sri S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that all the applicants are appointed to their respective posts since 2012 onwards and accordingly posted in the same station till date. As per the learned counsel, case of the present applicants are squarely covered by order dated 12.04.2022 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 381/2000 and upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide Judgment and order dated 25.04.2003 in WP (C) No. 2955/2003 as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 646/2005. Applicants’ case is also similar with the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 230/2004 and consequent order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P (C) No. 1035/2007 and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) CC No. 13260/2010 dated 01.09.2010.
But the said benefit has not been extended to the present applicants, which is in violation of Article 14 of the constitution.
Learned counsel has submitted that a similar O.A. No. 67/2004 was filed by the National Federation of Information and Broadcasting Employees, All India Radio, Nagaland Unit, claiming the same benefit of HRA as was granted by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 192/96 vide order dated 10.6.1997 The O.A. No. 67/2004 was disposed of by order dated 16.12.2004 holding that the applicants are entitled to HRA at the same rate which was granted to the applicants in O.A. No. 192/96 and other connected matters. The said order dated 16.12.2004 has been implemented by the respondents.
Learned counsel has further contended that a similar application was filed being O.A. No. 282/2013 by the employees of Gr-B, C and D of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB) in the State of Nagaland under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India which was disposed of vide order dated 03.02.2015 and directed the respondents authorities to verify the factual details and if the applicants are found to be similarly situated, the benefit of aforementioned judgments be extended by granting the benefit of HRA @ 'B' class city i.e. 20% of the basic pay to the applicants with all consequential benefits.
As per the learned counsel for the applicants, for the purpose of extending the grant of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the Central Government employees, the Government of India has classified all the cities/towns and places by issuing various notifications/orders from time to time. In view of this, learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for similar relief in respect of the present applicants also.
Sri R. Hazarika, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents has submitted that the order passed in O.A. No. 381 of 2000 referred by the applicants is applicable only to the applicants of the said O.A. and therefore, present applicants are not entitled for the same benefits of HRA @ ‘B’ class cities. He has further contended that as per OM Dated 07.07.2017 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and as per clarification of cities by the 7th CPC for granting House Rent Allowance, Itana
