Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 363 (GAU)

Union of India v. Mohan Das S/o (L) Manchit Das

2025-03-04

N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, C.J. 1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CAT’), Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No.231/2019, whereby the CAT has disposed of the said original application filed by the respondents herein. 2. The CAT in the impugned order has directed the respondents (petitioners herein) to extend the benefit, which was extended to the applicants in O.A. Nos.381/2000 and 267/2017, to the applicants (respondents herein) and grant consequential benefits within four months of receipt of certified copy of this order after verifying their period of posting in Aizawl . 3. The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to grant of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the Central Government employees working in the office of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau at Aizawl, Mizoram. The respondents herein being the employees of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau at Aizawl, filed O.A. No.231/2019 before the CAT raising a grievance that they were getting HRA at the rate applicable to the cities classified as ‘C’ class cities whereas they were entitled to HRA applicable to the ‘B’ class cities. The petitioners placed reliance on the earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Gauhati High Court as well as the CAT and made a prayer that they may be granted the benefit of HRA applicable to ‘B’ class cities. It appears that prior to filing of O.A. No.231/2019, the respondents herein preferred O.A. No.395/2018 before the CAT challenging the Memorandum dated 17.09.2018 and the said original application was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.2018 directing the respondents (petitioners herein) to dispose of the last pending representations filed on behalf of the applicants (respondents herein) with the further direction that whatever the decision would be arrived at by the respondent authorities, the same should be reasoned and speaking and would be communicated to the applicants. Pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the CAT in O.A. No.395/2018, the petitioner department passed the order dated 11.04.2019, which was annexed as Annexure- A-2 to the O.A No.231/2019. Being aggrieved with the said order, the respondents filed the O.A. No.231/2019 challenging the validity of the said order as well as the Memorandum dated 17.09.2018, whichwas annexed as Annexure- A-1 to O.A. No.231/2019. Being aggrieved with the said order, the respondents filed the O.A. No.231/2019 challenging the validity of the said order as well as the Memorandum dated 17.09.2018, whichwas annexed as Annexure- A-1 to O.A. No.231/2019. The CAT, after considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, disposed of the O.A. No.231/2019 vide the impugned order dated 02.05.2023. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 02.05.2023 are reproduced hereunder: “15. We have heard Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R. Hazarika, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and perused the records. 16. It is noted that as per the applicants, different departments of the Central Government had paid the HRA @ ‘B’ class city rates by extending the benefit of the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2002 passed in O.A. No. 381/2000 (Annexure-17) as well as Order dated 19.09.2017 passed in O.A. No. 044/267/2017 (Annexure A/7), which was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court . 17. It is further noted that in para (ii) of the impugned Speaking Order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure A/2), the respondents have admitted that 697 Central Government employees, working in various departments had approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 381/2000, wherein different departments were impleaded as respondents and the benefits of ‘B’ class city rates were extended to those applicants only and since the present applicants were not part of the said O.A., therefore, said benefit is not applicable to them. 18. It is the cardinal principle of law that classification of any city should be one and same for all Central Government employees. It cannot be one class of city for one set of employees and another class of city for another set of employees. 19. It is further noted that as per concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, different department had granted the benefit of Group ‘B’ city’s rate even after implementation of 5th CPC, therefore, Aizawl at Mizoram cannot be termed as Group ‘B’ city for those employees of different departments, who had approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 381 of 2000 and O.A. No. 267 of 2017 and the same city would not be classified as ‘C’ class city with regard to other sets of employees. 20. Further as per the respondents, Clause 3 of the Office Memorandum issued by the MoF is not applicable with respect to Aizawl. 20. Further as per the respondents, Clause 3 of the Office Memorandum issued by the MoF is not applicable with respect to Aizawl. However, same issue was considered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in their Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 1035/2007 (Annexure-A/14) with regard to the employees of the same respondents of Kohima (which city was also classified as ‘C’ class city like Aizawl, Mizoram) wherein it has been observed in paras 8, 9, 10 as follows:- “8. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2705/1991 (Union of India & Ors.Vs. Shri S.K. Ghosh & Ors.) vide order dated 18.02.1993 while considering the claim of Group-C and D employees of Postal & Telecommunication Department posted in the State of Nagaland claiming HRA at the rate as admissible to the employees posted in ‘B’ class cities, referring to the Presidential order dated 08.01.1962, had held that those employees are entitled to HRA at the rate which had been prescribed by the 4th Pay Commission recommendations for ‘B’ class cities w.e.f. 01.10.1986. It is not the case of the writ petitioners herein that the said Presidential order dated 08.01.1962 granting HRA, to the P&T staff posted in the State of Nagaland, at the rate applicable in ‘B’ class cities has been withdrawn. The similarly placed employees having been allowed the HRA at the said rate, the same cannot be denied to the respondents herein, they being posted in the State of Nagaland. 9. It also appears that some of the present respondents earlier approached the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 279/1997 claiming that they are entitled to HRA at the rate applicable to ‘B’ class cities w.e.f. 01.03.1991, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2001 allowing the said prayer in terms of 35 O.A. No. 231/2019 the earlier order of the learned Tribunal dated 22.08.1995 passed in OA No. 37/1995 and batch. By the order dated 22.08.1995 passed in OA No. 37/1995 and batch, the learned Tribunal has held that the applicants therein are entitled to HRA at the rate applicable to the Central Government employees in ‘B’ class cities w.e.f. 01.03.1991 onwards and they shall be paid accordingly. The said orders of the learned Tribunal have not been challenged by the present petitioners, who were the respondents therein, in the higher forum. 10. The said orders of the learned Tribunal have not been challenged by the present petitioners, who were the respondents therein, in the higher forum. 10. Since the present respondents, who are posted in Kohima and Dimapur in the State of Nagaland, are entitled to the HRA at the rate applicable to the employees in ‘B’ class cities, they are to be paid HRA inthe same rate, in view of Clause-3 of the office Memorandum dated 03.10.1997, until further orders are passed by the Central Government in that regard. For better appreciation Clause-3 of the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.1997 is reproduced below:- “3. The cities/towns which have been placed in a lower classification in the above mentioned lists, as compared to their existing classification shall continue to retain the existing classification until further orders and the Central Government employees working therein will be entitled to draw the rates of CCA and HRA accordingly.” 21. Against the said Order, the respondents therein/present respondents, had preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex court vide CC 13260/2010 (Annexure-A/15), where the Hon’ble Apex Court vide their Order dated 01.09.2010 had dismissed the said SLP. 22. We failed to understand, if according to the respondents, Aizawl had been classified as ‘C’ class city, then why the Ministry of Finance had accorded sanction to extend the benefit of HRA @ ‘B’ class city to the petitioners of aforementioned Original Application vide O.M. dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure-A/9) to the employees of Postal department as well as other differentdepartments/Ministries, who are/were posted at Aizawl/Mizoram. 23. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Government cannot discriminate the employees working in same city by treating the same city in two categories for two sets of employees. However, since the applicants have not mentioned their period of working at Aizawl, therefore, we quash and set aside the Memorandum dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure-A/1), impugned Speaking Order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure-A2) and direct the respondents to extend the benefits of the Order of this Tribunal dated 12.04.2002 passed in O.A. No. 381 of 2000 (Annexure-A/17) as well as Order dated 19.09.2017 passed in O.A. No. 044/00267/2017 (Annexure-A/7) and grant the consequential benefits, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after verifying their period of posting in Aizawl, Mizoram. 24. O.A. stands disposed of with the above observations and directions with no order as to costs.” 4. 24. O.A. stands disposed of with the above observations and directions with no order as to costs.” 4. The petitioners have assailed the validity of the impugned order passed by the CAT on the ground that for the purpose of extending the benefit of 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. It is contended that the Government of India vide order dated 14.05.1993 classified Aizawl as a ‘C’ Class city and even in the report of Fifth Central Pay Commission the city of Aizawl was classified as a ‘C’ Class city. It is further contended that in the reports of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the cities falling under the category of Class ‘C’ were put under a new category, i.e. ‘Z’ category, which continued under the said classification during Seventh Central Pay Commission and the Aizawl city was categorised as ‘Z’ Class city. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, submitted that when the classification of Aizawl city has never been upgraded from Class ‘C’ to ‘B’, the prayer made by the respondents to pay them HRA applicable to the Central Government employees posted at ‘B’ class cities is unjustified and has rightly been denied by the petitioners by passing the orders dated 17.09.2018 and 11.04.2019, respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the employees, who filed O.A. No.381/2000 before the CAT, are concerned, the benefit of HRA applicable to ‘B’ Class cities was granted to them as per the orders passed by the CAT, Gauhati High Court as well as by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the order dated 12.04.2002 passed by the CAT in O.A. No.381/2000 made an important observation that if the Government of India issued fresh instructions after 13.11.1987, then the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with the latest instructions. It is contended that after 13.11.1987, vide Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993, Aizawl city was classified as ‘C’ Class city w.e.f. 01.03.1991 and therefore, as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicants are entitled to the HRA applicable to the category of ‘C’ class cities only. It is contended that after 13.11.1987, vide Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993, Aizawl city was classified as ‘C’ Class city w.e.f. 01.03.1991 and therefore, as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicants are entitled to the HRA applicable to the category of ‘C’ class cities only. It is, therefore, contended that the learned CAT has wrongly issued a direction to extend the same benefit to the respondents herein, which had been extended to the applicants in O.A. No.381/2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order passed by the CAT is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. It is further prayed that the writ petition may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the CAT and has argued that when the employees of the other departments of the Central Government, posted at Aizawl, are being granted the benefit of HRA applicable to the ‘B’ Class city, there is no justification in the action of the petitioners of depriving the same HRA to the respondents herein and the CAT, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the impugned order and, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. There may be some merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that after 13.11.1987, the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 was issued whereby the Aizawl City was classified as a ‘C’ Class city. Therefore, as per the order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the applicants in O.A. No.381/2000, the cases of the respondents herein are liable to be considered in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 and as per the said Office Memorandum, the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of HRA as applicable to the ‘C’ class cities and not ‘B’ class cities. However, the CAT has taken into consideration the order dated 01.03.2016 issued by the Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, whereby the Ministry of Finance accorded sanction to extend the benefit of HRA applicable to ‘B’ Class city to the applicants in O.A. No.381/2000, who were the employees of the Postal Department posted at Aizawl. However, the CAT has taken into consideration the order dated 01.03.2016 issued by the Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, whereby the Ministry of Finance accorded sanction to extend the benefit of HRA applicable to ‘B’ Class city to the applicants in O.A. No.381/2000, who were the employees of the Postal Department posted at Aizawl. The order dated 01.03.2016 is reproduced hereunder: “F. NO.4-23/2000-PAP GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & IT DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION)/P.A.P. SECTION DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI- 110 001 ORDER Subject: Grant of HRA at a higher rate (‘B’ category) to the Central Government Servants posted at Aizawl (Mizoram)-Court Case regarding. Central Government Employees Federation of Mizoram, General Head Quarters, Aizawl, Mizoram made a representation to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India claiming House Rent Allowance at ‘B’ Class City rates and Compensation in lieu of Rent Free Accommodation at the rate of 10% to the Central Government Employees posted in Mizoram State based on the judgment passed by Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2715/91- Union of India & Ors. V/s Shri S.K. Ghosh & others and Department of Posts Order No.8-40/87-PAP dated 7.3.1994 & No.4- 52/98-PAP dated 27.02.1999. On rejection of their claim, the Central Government Employees posted in the State of Mizoram approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati under O.A. No.381/2000. The Hon’ble CAT, in para-5 of its order dated 12.04.2002 pronounced as under:- “In view of the position enumerated above, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to House Rent Allowance at the rate prescribed for B class cities to the Central Government employees which should be payable to the applicants at the rate of 15% from 1.1.1986 to 30.9.1986 and from 1.10.86 to 30.9.86 and from 1.10.1986 at flat rate prescribed under O.M. dated 7.8.1987 read with another O.M. dated 13.11.1987 and the Notification GSR No.623 (E) amending the Fundamental Rule 45 A with effect from 1.7.1987. As regards the claim for compensation in lieu of Rent Free Accommodation the respondents are to act in conformity with the Office memorandum No.12-11/60-ACC-I dated 2.8.1960, O.M. dated 23.2.1986 and 22.5.1987 and also to O.M. dated 13.11.1987. The respondents shall examine the each case on merits and thereafter shall pass necessary order in individual cases. As regards the claim for compensation in lieu of Rent Free Accommodation the respondents are to act in conformity with the Office memorandum No.12-11/60-ACC-I dated 2.8.1960, O.M. dated 23.2.1986 and 22.5.1987 and also to O.M. dated 13.11.1987. The respondents shall examine the each case on merits and thereafter shall pass necessary order in individual cases. Rent free unfurnished accommodation is admissible to Central Government employees having all India transfer liability only those who are posted in Mizoram or HRA at the rate prescribed from time to time. Compensation and admissible HRA shall be granted to those persons who are entitled to rent free accommodation and could not be provided accommodation and the above benefit shall be granted only to the Central Government employees having all India Transfer liability and posted in Mizoram vide letter No.11015/1/E/(B)/76 dated 31.7.1977. The respondents shall examine the individual cases and thereafter pass necessary orders in those cases, others will not be eligible for the same. The application is allowed in part, No costs.” 2. The Department filed WP No.2955/2003 in the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati against the orders of the CAT dated 12-04-2002. The Hon’ble High Court in its judgment dated 25.4.2003, “disposed of the appeal with the observations that the directions given by the Learned Tribunal in the last part of the Judgment quoted above shall be complied with by the Central Government after taking due consideration of the observations recorded within a period of 6 months. The High Court observed that the case of each and every Central Government employee posted in the State of Mizoram will have to be taken separately and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon after such consideration in terms of OM dated 23-09-86, 19-03-87 and 13-11-87. The Hon’ble High Court, however, observed that the employees posted in Aizawl Headquarters of the State of Mizoram being a ‘C’ Class city may not be entitled to HRA as prescribed for ‘B’ Class cities.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati, the Central Government Employees filed a Civil Appeal No.646/2005 in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Judgment order dated 25-04-2003 of the High Court of Guwahati in WP No.2955/2003. Aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati, the Central Government Employees filed a Civil Appeal No.646/2005 in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Judgment order dated 25-04-2003 of the High Court of Guwahati in WP No.2955/2003. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the civil appeal and passed the orders dated 17.07.2013 as under:- “We have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. In our view, the direction given by the Tribunal, which has been confirmed by the High Court, merely ordains consideration of the cases of each employee for grant of City Compensatory Allowance in accordance with O.M. dated 02.08.1960, O.M. dated 23.02.1986 and 22.5.1987 as also O.M. dated 13.11.1987 and nothing more. Therefore, the impugned order as also the one passed by the Tribunal do not call for interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the Government of India has issued fresh instructions after 13.11.1987 then the cases of the respondents shall be considered in accordance with the latest instructions.” 4. Consequent upon obtaining the concurrence of Integrated Finance Wing of this Department, the matter was referred to Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure for decision. 5. Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure has considered the matter and accorded their approval in view of the decision taken by the Department of Posts to not to file any Review Petition in the matter and as the Ministry of Law & Justice has advised Department of Posts to take administrative decision for implementation of the said order of Hon’ble Tribunal, implementation of the Order dated 12.04.2002 passed by the Hon’ble CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.381/2000 for grant of House Rent Allowance at ‘B’/’Y’ class cities rates, as admissible from time to time, is agreed to. 6. Since, the Department of Posts had represented the Union of India on behalf of all the respondents Ministries/Departments/Offices, the approval accorded by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance is therefore conveyed to all the Respondent Ministries/Departments/Offices for issuing appropriate instructions for compliance of orders dated 12.04.2002 of Hon’ble CAT, Guwahati Bench in respect of the employees working under their administrative control who were/are Applicants in the said OA No.381/2000. 7. 7. This has the approval of the Competent Authority.” It is important to note that the order dated 01.03.2016 was passed after passing of the judgment dated 10.07.2013 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.646/2005. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the CAT has rightly observed that when the applicants of O.A. No.381/2000 and the employees of the Postal department of the Central Government and several other employees of the other departments of the Central Government posted at Aizawl are being paid HRA applicable to ‘B’ Class cities, there is no reason for not extending the same benefit to the respondents herein, who are also the employees of a department of Central Government and posted at Aizawl. Such attitude of the Government is discriminatory. 9. In the writ petition, a statement has been made on behalf of the petitioners that grant of HRA at the rate of ‘B’ class cities to the employees of other departments of the Central Government posted at Aizawl is in contravention of the government instruction and the said orders are also subjected to review. However, no material is placed on record to suggest that such review has ever taken place. 10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.231/2019 and therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order. 11. However, it is made clear that if at any point of time the Central Government reviews its decision of granting HRA applicable to ‘B’ Class cities to the Central Government employees posted in the departments at Aizawl, other than the department where the respondents herein are working, the cases of the respondents shall also be guided by the said review exercise. However, till any such review exercise is undertaken, the respondents will be entitled to get relief as per the directions issued by the CAT in the impugned order. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed.