A petition challenging a dismissal for lack of cause cannot proceed without a prior specific order invoked, allowing withdrawal to pursue direct challenges.

JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the common order dated 23.06.2025 passed in O.A. No. 180/00304/2024 and the connected matter by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the Original Applications were dismissed.

2. The petitioners, who are employees of the fourth respondent, National Ayurveda Research Institute for Panchakarma (NARIP), Cheruthuruthy, filed Original Application No. 304/2024 challenging the orders contained in Annexures A1, A2, and A20, and seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to restore the House Rent Allowance (HRA) to 18% of the basic pay with effect from October 2023, and to disburse the arrears of the differential amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2.1 The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Original Application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present Original Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, as per Annexure-A10 order, the HRA admissible to the petitioners is at the rate of 18% of the basic pay. The respondents reduced the HRA from 18% to 9% and directed recovery of the excess amount already paid, that too without affording an opportunity for a personal hearing. The action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3.1 It was further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners and erred in dismissing the Original Application. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the Original Petition allowed.

4.Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not to have entertained the Original Application, inasmuch as it was premature. On a perusal of Annexure-A1 order dated 11.10.2023, it is evident that the same is only an inspection report on the accounts of NARIP. Annexure-A2 is merely a request made by the petitioners to pay HRA at the rate of 18% instead of 9%, and Annexure-A20 is only a circular regarding excess payment of HRA.

4.1 By no stretch of imagination do the said documents give rise to any cause of action so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal ought not to have entertained the Original Application, as it was premature. If the respondents had initiated recovery proceedings, the petitioners were obliged to challenge the recovery order, if any, or the pay slip reflecting deduction of HRA from 18% to 9%. Neither any recovery order nor any pay slip showing deduction of HRA has been challenged.

4.2 In the circumstances, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application, and the present Original Petition does not warrant any interference. The same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. On a perusal of the impugned order and Annexures A1, A2, and A20, it is seen that none of them are orders by which the HRA has been reduced or recovery has been directed from the petitioners. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the Original Application at the admission stage itself, since no cause of action had arisen for the petitioners to file the said Original Application. Even before this Court, no document or pay slip has been subsequently produced to show that any deduction is being effected. In the absence of a challenge before the Tribunal or this Court to any specific order of reduction or recovery, no relief can be granted.

6.1 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to