Gauhati High Court Upholds 'Y' Category HRA for Mizoram University Staff, Citing Parity for Central Govt Employees in Aizawl

Gauhati High Court Directs Higher HRA for Mizoram University Staff, Citing Parity with Other Central Government Employees

Guwahati: In a significant ruling for teaching and non-teaching staff of Mizoram University (MZU) and its constituent Pachhunga University College (PUC), the Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Union of India and upheld a Single Judge's order directing the payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA) at rates applicable to 'Y' category cities.

The Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair , delivered the judgment on March 25, 2025, in Case No. WA/90/2024, affirming the decision passed by the learned Single Judge on July 19, 2023, in WP(c)14/2021.

The case originated from a claim by 760 employees of MZU and PUC for HRA benefits at 'B-2'/'Y' category rates, despite Aizawl city's official classification as a 'C'/'Z' category city according to various government Office Memoranda , including the latest based on the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations.

Background of the Dispute

The history of the dispute traces back to the employees' previous tenure at the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) Aizawl Campus . During that period, they received HRA at 'B-2' class city rates, at par with employees in Shillong and Kohima , based on a specific Office Memorandum (OM) dated May 14, 1993, which granted this benefit to Central Government employees in these cities for "special reasons". NEHU formalized this by a Notification dated May 17, 1994.

Upon the establishment of Mizoram University by the Mizoram University Act, 2000, employees of the erstwhile NEHU Aizawl Campus were transferred to MZU under Section 33(1) of the Act. This section stipulated that transferred employees would retain the same terms and conditions, rights, and privileges as they held under NEHU, including matters related to emoluments.

However, the Union of India subsequently declined to authorize HRA at 'B'/'Y' rates for MZU/PUC employees, citing Aizawl 's classification as a 'Z' city. This rejection was formally communicated in 2019.

Arguments Presented

Appearing for the appellant Union of India, Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, Dy. SGI, argued that HRA is granted based on the place of duty's classification, and Aizawl has consistently been classified as 'C' or 'Z'. He contended that the higher HRA benefit was extended to certain other Central Government employees in Aizawl only due to specific court orders concerning those individuals, and this benefit was not intended for non-applicants or extended universally. He also referred to a Supreme Court order in a related case (Civil Appeal No:646/2005) suggesting consideration based on the latest instructions (which classify Aizawl as 'C'/'Z').

Conversely, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Lalramenga , representing the respondents, argued that denying the higher HRA rate was unjustified and discriminatory, especially when other Central Government employees posted in Aizawl were receiving this benefit based on previous court orders and subsequent government communications. They highlighted that the historical benefit originated from a valid OM (1993) and was protected for transferred employees under Section 33(1) of the MZU Act.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The Division Bench carefully considered the arguments and the history of the case. It noted the Single Judge's reliance on the continued validity of the 1993 OM and its extensions, the provisions of Section 33(1) of the MZU Act, and prior court decisions.

Crucially, the Bench found significant merit in the respondents' argument regarding parity. It acknowledged that Central Government employees in various departments in Aizawl had indeed been granted and continued to receive HRA at 'B'/'Y' class city rates based on prior court orders (including the CAT order in O.A. No.381/2000, upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court, and subsequently implemented for the applicants via a Department of Posts OM dated March 1, 2016).

The Court held that when similarly placed Central Government employees in Aizawl are authorized HRA at higher rates than mandated by the city's official classification, denying the same benefit to Mizoram University employees amounts to discrimination.

The Bench also referred to a recent co-ordinate bench judgment (WP(c)7550/2023, dated March 4, 2025) which dealt with a similar issue concerning other Central Government employees in Aizawl and also concluded that denying the higher HRA benefit was discriminatory under such circumstances.

Therefore, the Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge's conclusion. It upheld the direction that the respondents are entitled to HRA at 20% from September 1, 2008, to June 30, 2017, and at 16% from July 1, 2017, onwards.

The judgment directs Mizoram University to calculate the arrears for the employees within six weeks and forward the details to the Union of India (Ministry of Education and Ministry of Finance) for sanction and release of funds within three months thereafter.

The Court included an important observation, mirroring the one in the WP(c)7550/2023 judgment: if the Central Government undertakes a future review of its decision to grant 'Y' class HRA to Central Government employees in Aizawl , the cases of the Mizoram University/PUC employees would also be governed by that review. However, until such a review occurs, the employees are entitled to the higher HRA rates as per the Single Judge's direction.

With these directions and observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of.