The Tribunal held that employees similarly situated to those in previous judgments regarding HRA rates in Kohima should be granted similar benefits, or the administration must provide a reasoned order explaining the distinction after granting a fair hearing.

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:

“8.1Impugned letters dated 24.02.2025/30.04.2025/03.03.2025 (Annexure A1 colly) be set aside and quashed, with all consequential action.

8.2 The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to continue to grant HRA to the applicant no. 7 at Y class city rate w.e.f. March, 2024 till her posting at Kohima including interest @ 12% on arrear.

8.3 The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. l0,000/- recovered from the salary of the applicant no. 9 in June, 2025(salary of May).

8.4 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.

Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants served as PRT/TGT/PGT/ Librarian for various periods between 2020 to 2024 at K.V, Kohima (Nagaland) and received House Rent Allowance (HRA) ‘B’/‘Y’ class city rate @ 16/ 18% and applicant no. 7 is still serving at Kohima. This application are basically aggrieved by the impugned letters dated 24.02.2025, 30.04.2025 & 03.03.2025 whereby recovery has been sought to be made from the applicants on the ground that HRA had been paid to them at higher rate applicable i.e. 16/18% instead of 8/9% during their posting at Kohima, relying upon MOF OM dated 21.07.2015; whereas this Tribunal passed various orders for grant of HRA at B/Y class city rate to similarly situated Central Government Employees of Kohima by order dated 08.01.2016 in O.A No. 02/2016, order dated 03.02.2017 in O.A No. 69/2016, order dated 24.07.2019 in O.A N0. 46/346/2017, order dated 13.03.2020 in O.A No. 46/091/2020, order dated 25.11.2021 in O.A No. 46/378/2019, order dated 20.05.2025 in O.A. no. 046/342/2023 which have been all implemented in favour of the employees therein by granting HRA at B class city rate. More so, other Central Government Employees working in Kohima are granted HRA at Y class city rate as evident from Prasar Bharati, AIR Kohima Pay Slip for November, 2021, AG (Audit), Kohima Pay slip July, 2017, etc., hence, such action of recovery/stopping of due HRA is arbitrary and illegal being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution ofIndia and the principles of natural justice.

Dr. Sharma has pleaded that no opportunity being heard has been afforded to the applicants before carrying out such action of recovery. Further, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide judgement and order dated 04.03.2025 in WP(C) 7550/2023 has passed order in respect of similarly situated employees working in Aizawl to claim HRA at Y class city rate. As per the learned counsel, the matter has attained finality and the same is no more res integra.

Sri M.K. Majumdar, learned KV standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has pleaded that various orders of this Tribunal have been implemented by the respondents as per direction of the Ministry of Home Affair only to those applicants who approached this Tribunal. Therefore, said directions are not directly applicable to KVS employee posted at Kohima.

We have heard both parties, perused the documents and judgements/orders placed by both parties.

In view of the fact that similar issues have already been dealt with by this Tribunal by granting the reliefs sought, we are not inclined to pass separate order as the facts and circumstances are similar as that of the present case. Accordingly, we direct the respondents that in case the applicants are similarly situated with the applicants as stated in the aforesaid cases (supra), similar benefits be granted to the present applicants too. In case, the respondents decide to distinguish their case from the cases referred above, they will pass a reasoned and speaking order pointing out as to how this case is different from the aforesaid OAs after giving an opportunit