JUDGMENT : N. Unni Krishnan Nair J. Heard Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI, appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 755. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellants, herein, assailing the judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)14/2021. 3. The learned Single Judge vide the judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, in WP(c)14/2021; had directed the appellants, herein, to authorize to the respondents No. 1 to 755, House Rent Allowance(HRA) at the rate applicable for ‘Y’ category cities. 4. The respondents, herein, are the teaching and non-teaching staff of Mizoram University and its constituent College. Some of the respondents were earlier appointed as teaching and non-teaching staff in the erstwhile North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) Aizawl Campus. During the period of service of the above-noted respondents, who were appointed in the North Eastern Hill University(NEHU), Aizawl Campus, they were being authorized their House Rent Allowance(HRA) at par with the employees of the North Eastern Hill University(NEHU) working at Shillong and Kohima. Although the cities of Aizawl, Shillong and Kohima, were categorized as ‘C’ category cities; the Central Government employees working in various Departments in the aforesaid cities were being authorized their House Rent Allowance(HRA) at the rates so prescribed for ‘B-2’ category cities. 5. Such benefit was being so extended to the Central Government employees working in various Departments in the above-noted cities in terms of an Office Memorandum, dated 14.05.1993. 6. The North Eastern Hill University(NEHU) authorities, had, by adopting the provisions of the Office Memorandum, dated 14.05.1993, issued a Notification, dated 17.05.1994, authorizing payment of House Rent Allowance(HRA) at the rate admissible for ‘B-2’ class cities for employees of North Eastern Hill University(NEHU) posted at Aizawl and Kohima centres w.e.f. 01.05.1991. 7. 6. The North Eastern Hill University(NEHU) authorities, had, by adopting the provisions of the Office Memorandum, dated 14.05.1993, issued a Notification, dated 17.05.1994, authorizing payment of House Rent Allowance(HRA) at the rate admissible for ‘B-2’ class cities for employees of North Eastern Hill University(NEHU) posted at Aizawl and Kohima centres w.e.f. 01.05.1991. 7. Upon enactment of the Mizoram University Act, 2000, which had come into force w.e.f. 25.04.2000; the employees serving under the erstwhile North Eastern Hill University(NEHU), were deemed to be transferred to the Mizoram University on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity, provident fund and other matters, as they would have been authorized under the North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973, in terms of the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Mizoram University Act, 2000. 8. The Government of India, had, vide Office Memorandum, dated 29.08.2008, changed the classification of various cities from ‘A1’, ‘A’, ‘B-1’, ‘B-2’, ‘C’ and ‘Unclassified’ to that of ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ category cities for the purpose of authorizing to its employees, the House Rent Allowance(HRA). 9. Accordingly, the authorities of the Mizoram University had submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India(now, Ministry of Education, Government of India), for authorization of House Rent Allowance(HRA) to the employees of the Mizoram University and Pachhunga University College, at the rate as prescribed for ‘Z’ category cities, in-as-much as, vide the Office Memorandum, dated 29.08.2008; Aizawl city was classified as a ‘Z’ category city. 10. Being aggrieved, the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, through their respective Service Associations approached the Mizoram University, praying for authorization of House Rent Allowance (HRA) in their respective cases at the rate as prescribed for ‘Y’ class city in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission report as well as the 7th Central Pay Commission report. 11. The representations as submitted by the respondents, herein, was considered and rejected. The rejection of the representations, was communicated to the Registrar, Mizoram University, by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, vide communication, dated 29.01.2019. 11. The representations as submitted by the respondents, herein, was considered and rejected. The rejection of the representations, was communicated to the Registrar, Mizoram University, by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, vide communication, dated 29.01.2019. A perusal of the said communication, dated 29.01.2019, would go to reveal that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, on the issue being referred to it; had not agreed to allow authorization of House Rent Allowance(HRA) at ‘Y’ class city rate to the employees of Mizoram University and its constituent College. 12. The respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, having submitted further representation in the matter; the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, vide communication, dated 11.12.2019, communicated to the Registrar, Mizoram University, the reasons as to why the authorization of House Rent Allowance(HRA) at ‘B’/’Y’ class rates to the employees of Mizoram University, was not agreed to. 13. The reasons cited in the said communication, dated 11.12.2019, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 2.(i) HRA to Central, Government employees is granted on the basis of their place of duty and as per orders relating to HRA issued vide OM No. 2(13)/2008-E.JI (B) dated 29.8.2008 and OM No. 2/5/2017-E.IN (B) dated 07.07.2017 on the recommendation of 6th and 7th CPC respectively, whole state of Mizoram comes under 'Z' class city, therefore grant of HRA at B'/ 'Y' class city rates to the employees of Mizoram University is not agreed to. (ii) This Department had agreed to grant HRA at 'B'/ 'Y' class city rates to the Central Government employees posted at Aizwaf, Mizoram on the basis of various court orders only. However, this has remained limited to Applicants in those court cases only and this benefit has not been extended to Non-Applicants. (iii) With regard to interpretation of Section 33 of Mizoram University Act, 2000, DHE may consult with Ministry of Law & Justice. Further, North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU) is located in Shillong which is a 'Y' class city as per the classification of cities prescribed in this Department's O M. No. 2/5/2014-E. (B) dated 21.7.2015 & OM. No. 2/5/2017-E/II(B) dated 07.07.26:7, whereas Mizoram University is located in Aizawl which is a 'Z' class city, therefore, rate of HRA cannot be compared for both the cities. 3. Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs has been consulted who have stated that Section 33 of the Mizoram University Act. No. 2/5/2017-E/II(B) dated 07.07.26:7, whereas Mizoram University is located in Aizawl which is a 'Z' class city, therefore, rate of HRA cannot be compared for both the cities. 3. Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs has been consulted who have stated that Section 33 of the Mizoram University Act. 2000 has limited application in respect of only those employees who were from State of Mizoram and working in the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) immediately before the commence of Mizoram University Act, 2000 and transferred to Mizoram University from NEHU. There is no provision in the NEHU Act, 1973 which provides for payment of HRA at a different rate from others. There is no provision in either of the Acts ie. Mizoram University Act, 2000 and NEHU Act, 1973 which provides the payment of HRA at a different rate from others.” 14. A perusal of the reasons cited in the communication, dated 11.12.2019, would go to reveal that one of the grounds for denial of the House Rent Allowance(HRA) at the rate prescribed for ‘B’/‘Y’ class cities was that there was no order(s) passed by the Courts directing authorization of House Rent Allowance(HRA) to the employees of Mizoram University and its constituent College at the rates specified for ‘B’/’Y’ class cities. 15. The extension of benefits to the Central Government employees posted at Aizawl of the benefits of House Rent Allowance(HRA) at the rates specified for ‘B’/’Y’ class city, was stated to have been so done in view of various Court orders and such authorization was limited to the persons involved in the Court cases involved. 16. Being aggrieved, the respondents, herein, as petitioners, had instituted WP(c)14/2021 before the writ Court. 17. The challenge in the present proceeding being to the judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)14/2021; the operative portion, thereof, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ [10.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. As may be seen, the claim made by the petitioners is that they are entitled to HRA @ 20% with effect from 01.09.2008 up to 01.07.2017 and @ 16% with effect from 01.07.2017 onwards. The basis for making such a claim is related to the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 by which the Govt. As may be seen, the claim made by the petitioners is that they are entitled to HRA @ 20% with effect from 01.09.2008 up to 01.07.2017 and @ 16% with effect from 01.07.2017 onwards. The basis for making such a claim is related to the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 by which the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure had permitted payment of HRA/CCA to Central Government Employees stationed at Shillong and in hill station at the rate given to ‘B-2’ class cities on account of special reasons. In view of the Office Memorandum, the Vice Chancellor of NEHU had also issued a circular granting HRA to employees stationed at Aizawl and Kohima at the rates given to ‘B-2’ class cities. [11.] With the enactment of the Act of 2000, the employees of the NEHU Campus at Aizawl and the PUC were merged with the MZU after giving option and under Section 33(1) of the Act of 2000, it is provided that every person who, immediately before the commencement of the Act of 2000 is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the NEHU in any area which on that date falls within the State of Mizoram shall be deemed to have been transferred to the service of MZU on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as regards to pension, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as the employee would have received under NEHU. Therefore, the employees of the NEHU admittedly continue to enjoy the benefit which they received under NEHU even after the establishment of the MZU. The benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 also stood extended from time to time vide Office Memorandums dated 18.11.2004, 16.03.2005, 07.01.2009 and 04.03.2011 amongst others. No material has been placed before this Court by which the benefit granted vide Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 has been recalled. Besides this, the various decisions rendered by CAT as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court shows that the benefit of granting HRA at par with ‘B- 2’ category cities or ‘Y’ category cities has been allowed. The issue also was taken up before the Apex Court and as already stated, the Apex Court had decline to interfere with the decision of the CAT in granting such benefit. The issue also was taken up before the Apex Court and as already stated, the Apex Court had decline to interfere with the decision of the CAT in granting such benefit. [12.] A perusal of the Communication dated 29.01.2019 impugned by the petitioners does not disclose any reason as to why the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure is not agreeable to allow HRA to ‘Y’ class cities rate to the petitioners. The impugned Communication dated 11.12.2019 provides that HRA is granted at ‘Y’ class cities rate to the employees concerned in view of the various Court orders in this regard and that the same cannot be applied to those who do not have the benefit of the Court orders. The stand taken in view of the Apex Court decision in State of Karnataka & Ors. -Vs- C. Lalitha (supra) cannot be applied and accepted. The further contention made in the said communication is that there is no provision in the Act of 2000 or the North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973 providing payment of HRA at different rates compared to others. However, the fact remains that the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 has clearly given such benefit on account of special reasons though not cited. The benefit granted as already stated herein above was extended from time to time and has not been withdrawn or recalled. Therefore, the impugned Communications dated 29.01.2019 and 11.12.2019, in the considered view of this Court cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. [13.] The petitioners are thus found to be entitled to be paid HRA @ 20% with effect from 01.09.2008 to 30.06.2017 and thereafter, @ 16% with effect from 01.07.2017 onwards. The respondent MZU shall make the necessary calculation of arrears to be paid in respect of each of the individual teaching or non-teaching staff of MZU and PUC within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and thereafter, forward the same to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for sanction and arrangement of fund as required. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall accord necessary sanction and arrange the fund within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the communication from the MZU.” 18. Assailing the judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)14/2021; Mr. 1 & 2 for sanction and arrangement of fund as required. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall accord necessary sanction and arrange the fund within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the communication from the MZU.” 18. Assailing the judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)14/2021; Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI, has submitted that for the purpose of extending the benefit 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. 19. Mr. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI, has further submitted that the Government of India, vide order, dated 14.05.1993, classified Aizawl as a ‘C’ Class city and even in the report of 5th Central Pay Commission, the city of Aizawl was classified as a ‘C’ Class city. The learned Dy. SGI has submitted that in the report of the 6th 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 the 7th Central Pay Commission and the Aizawl city was categorized as a ‘Z’ Class city. The learned Dy. SGI, has, therefore, submitted that when the classification of Aizawl city has never been upgraded from Class ‘C’ to ‘B’, the prayer as made by the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, to authorize to them, House Rent Allowance(HRA), at the rate applicable to the Central Government employees posted at ‘B’ class cities, is unjustified and has rightly been denied by the authorities concerned, by passing the orders, dated 17.09.2018 and 11.04.2019, respectively. The learned Dy. SGI has further submitted that insofar as the employees, who had filed Original Application being O.A. No.381/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT), Guwahati Bench, are concerned; the benefit of House Rent Allowance(HRA) applicable to ‘B’ Class cities, was granted to them in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court as well as by the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT), Guwahati Bench. 20. Mr. Choudhury, learned Dy. 20. Mr. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI, has further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 17.07.2013, in Civil Appeal No:646/2005, had directed that if the Government of India issues fresh instructions after 13.11.1987, then the cases of the employees involved, should be considered in accordance with the latest instructions. It has been submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI, that after 13.11.1987, vide Office Memorandum, dated 14.05.1993, Aizawl city was classified as a ‘C’ Class city w.e.f. 01.03.1991, and therefore, as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, are entitled to House Rent Allowance(HRA) at the rate applicable to the category of ‘C’ class cities only. It has been, accordingly, submitted by the learned Dy. SGI, that the learned Single Judge had erred in issuing directions for extending the same benefit to the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, which had been extended to other Central Government employees posted at Aizawl, in terms of the Tribunal’s/Court’s orders. The learned Dy. SGI, has, accordingly, prayed that the impugned judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)14/2021, is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 21. Per contra, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 755, herein; while supporting the judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)14/2021, has submitted that when the employees of the other Departments of the Central Government posted at Aizawl, are being granted the benefit of House Rent Allowance (HRA) applicable to the ‘B’/’Y’Class city; there was no justification in the action of the appellants, herein, of denying House Rent Allowance(HRA) at the same rate to the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, and the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, had rightly passed the impugned judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, in WP(c)14/2021; and, therefore, the learned senior counsel has submitted that this intra-Court appeal instituted by the appellant, may be dismissed at the threshold. 22. 22. The issues arising in the present proceeding, had also arisen before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the proceedings of WP(c)7550/2023, and this Court, had, vide judgment & order, dated 04.03.2025, allowed the said writ petition, directing the employees involved, therein, to be authorized their House Rent Allowance(HRA) at ‘B’ class city rates for the period they were so posted at Aizawl. The relevant portion of the judgment & order, dated 04.03.2025, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 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. 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- 110001 DATED, THE 01st March, 2016 To The Chief Post Master General, N.E. Postal Circle, Shillong-793001 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 23. On a consideration of the materials coming on record, it having come to the forefront that the Central Government employees posted in various Departments in the city of Aizawl, were being authorized their respective House Rent Allowance (HRA) at the rate prescribed for ‘B’ class city and thereafter, at the rate prescribed for ‘Y’ class city; we do not find any merit in the reasoning advanced by the appellants, herein, that there being no Court order brought on record, requiring authorization of House Rent Allowance(HRA) to the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, they would not be entitled to the same. When similarly placed Central Government employees posted at Aizawl, are being continued to be authorized, House Rent Allowance(HRA), at higher rates than the rate applicable as per classification of the city of Aizawl, the same benefit could not have been denied to the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein. 24. When similarly placed Central Government employees posted at Aizawl, are being continued to be authorized, House Rent Allowance(HRA), at higher rates than the rate applicable as per classification of the city of Aizawl, the same benefit could not have been denied to the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein. 24. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, and the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of WP(c)7550/2023; we do not find that the learned Single Judge had erred in drawing the conclusions, so drawn by him vide the judgment & order, dated 19.07.2023, in WP(c)14/2021. 25. In the above view of the matter; the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, are held to be entitled to be authorized their House Rent Allowance(HRA) in terms of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment & order, dated 04.03.2025, in WP(c)14/2021. 26. However, we reiterate the observations as made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide the judgment & order, dated 04.03.2025, in WP(c)7550/2023, that, if, at any point of time, hereafter; the Central Government reviews its decision of granting House Rent Allowance(HRA) applicable to ‘Y’ class cities to the Central Government employees posted in various Departments in the city of Aizawl, other than in case of the employees of Mizoram University and its constituent College, the cases of respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, shall also be guided by the said review exercise. However, till any such review exercise is undertaken, the respondents No. 1 to 755, herein, will be entitled to be authorized their House Rent Allowance(HRA) in terms of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge, referred to above. 27. With the above directions and observations, this writ appeal accordingly stands disposed of.