it2025_00160 — Employees in the same city cannot be subjected to discriminatory classifications regarding HRA entitlements - Principle of equal treatment and fairness in its decision emphasized

Employees in the same city cannot be subjected to discriminatory classifications regarding HRA entitlements - Principle of equal treatment and fairness in its decision emphasized — The given chunk is part of an order that addresses a dispute between employees (the Applicants) working at INGAF, Aizwal, Mizoram, who claim they were discriminated against regarding HRA entitlements... — Facts: The Applicants in this OA joined INGAF, Aizwal, Mizoram on 1-7-2019. Initially, they approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 83 of 2021 seeking grant of HRA at the rate of 'B' class city which was disposed of by Order, dated 22-3-2021 directing the Respondent No. 3 to dispose of the pending Representations of the Applicant and to pass a speaking order within a period of 2 months. In response, the competent authority passed the impugned Order, dated 28-5-2021 rejecting the claim of the Applicants. Though similarly situated employees working at Aizawl were granted benefits of HRA @ 'B' class city rate in terms of the Order, dated 12-4-2002 passed in O.A. No. 381 of 2000, the Applicants were paid HRA only @ 8%. The Learned counsel for the Applicants contended that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, by OM, dated 7-7-2018, had extended the benefits of HRA @ 16% of basic pay to its employees who were posted at Aizawl, Mizoram in accordance with the Order, dated 19-9-2017 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 267 of 2017. The Ministry of Communication and IT, Department of Post vide OM, dated 1-3-2016 have extended the benefits of HRA @ 16% of basic pay to its employees at Aizawl, Mizoram, who joined after 2017 onwards with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants further placed reliance upon an Order, dated 11-5-2022 issued by the Office of the Principal Accountant-General, Mizoram, Aizawl wherein 9 persons who joined after 2019 onwards were granted the benefits of higher rate of HRA (at the rate of B/Y class city i.e. 16%) on implementation of the Order, dated 20-1-2022 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 044/00007 of 2022. However, the said benefits have not been granted to the Applicants. The Applicants contended that they were similarly situated to these employees and should receive the same benefits. The Counsel for the Respondents, however, argued that as per OM, dated 7-7-2017, Aizawl had been classified as a 'Z' class city after implementation of 7th CPC. The Respondents further stated that the Applicants, who joined after 2017, were not eligible for the higher HRA and they have not challenged the 2017 OM. They also referenced prior cases to support their position, asserting that the Applicants' claim was inconsistent with existing classifications. In reply, the Learned counsel for the Applicants once again relied upon the Order, dated 11-5-2022 issued by the Office of the Principal Accountant General, Mizoram, Aizawl and also another Order, dated 2-5-2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 044 of 00231 of 2019 (Mohan Das and others v. Union of India and others).