Judgment · High Court · 2012

#02. sel for the petitioners and Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. We have heard Mr. S Chakraborty, learned Central Government Coun The respondents as applicants approached the learned Tribunal se 03. eking, in substance, HRA at the rate sanctioned for ’B’ class cities identified by the Union authorities as accorded to their counterparts in the National Sampl e Survey Organization, Regional Office Kohima, Nagaland under the Ministry of St atistics and Programme Implementation. According to them, they have been working in various offices as above in the State of Nagaland and more particularly at K ohima and are, accordingly entitled to draw the HRA at the rate applicable to ’B ’ Class cities as per the order dated 27.10.2000, passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 20/1998, instituted by 14 similarly situated colleagues also posted t hereat.

#04. The petitioners herein in their written statement refuted the cl aim contending that Kohima in the State of Nagaland had been classified as a Cla ss ’C’ city on the basis of the population criteria in terms of the office memor andum dated 03.10.1997, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expendi ture. Further, as the respondents were not parties to the OA No. 20/1998, the be nefit granted therein was not extendable to them (the respondents).

#05. The learned Tribunal on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record granted the reliefs prayed for to the respondents princ ipally noticing the adjudication of the same issue in a series of proceedings by it, amongst others in OA No. 20/1998 and OA No.67/2004, disposed of on 27.10.20 00 and 16.12.2004 respectively. Consequentially, it directed the petitioners her ein to pay the enhanced HRA to them at the rate of 15% of the actual basic pay d rawn applicable to the Central Government employees posted at ’B’ Class cities a nd towns w.e.f. 18.11.2005 i.e. date of filing of the original application. The respondents’ claim for HRA at that rate prior thereto was negated.

#06. Mr. Chakraborty has urged with particular reference to the offic e memorandum No. 2(21)/E II (B)/2004, dated 18.11.2004 of the Government of Indi a, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure that as it apparent therefrom that Kohima has been categorized to be a Class ’C’ city, the impugned judgment a nd order having been passed without reference thereto is non est and is liable t o be interfered with. The learned Central Government Counsel sought to distingui sh the adjudications made in OA No. 20/1998 and OA No. 67/2004 by pleading that those are bereft of any precedential worth, the same having been rendered withou t taking note of the relevant office memorandum categorizing the cities/towns fo r the purpose of granting of HRA to the serving Central Government employees.

#07. Mr. Sarma, per contra has argued that as the respondents are out of the 19 employees posted at Kohima in the State of Nagaland, who had successf ully agitated for their HRA at the enhanced rate sanctioned for employees of Cla ss ’B’ cities/towns, the learned Tribunal rightly did not digress from the adjud ication already made and that at this distant point of time, no interference the rewith is warranted. According to him, as the petitioners did not, at any point of time, challenge the adjudication made in OA No. 20/1998 and also in OA No. 67 /2004, which incidentally, was subsequent to the office memorandum dated 18.11.2 004, they are estopped from pleading any disqualification of the respondents aga inst this entitlement of HRA at the enhanced rate sanctioned for employees of Cl ass ’B’ cities/towns. We have duly considered the pleadings of the parties as well as 08. the arguments advanced on the basis thereof. There is no denial of the fact that OA No. 20/1998 had been instituted by 14 of the 19 employees posted at Kohima i n the State of Nagaland including the present respondents and that by the order dated 27.10.2000, they were granted, by the learned Tribunal, HRA at the rates a pplicable to the Central Government employees of ’B’ Class cities/towns. Though, the office memorandum dated 03.10.1997 citing Kohima to be a Class ’C’ city on the basis of the population criteria is also referred to by Mr. Chakraborty, it is noticeable that the learned Tribunal did, by its order dated 27.10.2000 rende red in OA No.20/1998 hold the applicants therein to be entitled to HRA at the ra te accorded to the Central Government employees of ’B’ Class cities/towns. Incid entally, the office memorandum dated 18.11.2004 reiterates Dimapur and Kohima in the State of Nagaland to be ’C’ class cities/towns. This notwithstanding, the l earned Tribunal by order dated 16.12.2004, subsequent thereto, passed in OA No. 67/2004 granted HRA at the enhanced rate for ’B’ Class cities/towns at the rate of 15% of the actual basic pay drawn. The adjudications made on the issue by the learned Tribunal in the aforementioned proceedings have remained unchallenged b y the Union authorities till date. Though, a faint attempt has been made by Mr. Chakraborty to impress upon us that the decision of the learned Tribunal had bee n without any conscious reference to the prevailing office memorandum prescribin g the rates of HRA, we are not inclined, at this distant point of time, more par ticularly in view of the inexplicable abstinence on the part of the concerned au thorities to question it at any time earlier, to entertain the same for the pres ent. In the above view of the matter, in the exercise of our extra ordinary writ juri sdiction, we are disinclined to interfere. The petition, thus lacks in merit and is dismissed. Interim order(s), if any, would automatically stand vacated. No c osts.