Headline: Denying HRA to similarly placed employees working in the same institution is discriminatory.

The applicants, permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir, are employees of the School Education Department posted at Government Middle School, Ghou Manhasan, Zone Marh, District Jammu.

They were continuously receiving House Rent Allowance (HRA) in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance) Rules, 1992, and subsequent SROs revising HRA rates.

Their place of posting is approximately 5.5 kilometers from the periphery of the Jammu Municipal limits, falling within the prescribed 8-kilometer radius for HRA eligibility.

In 2010, the Finance Department issued Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010, directing Treasury Officers to stop HRA payments for Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) whose offices were outside prescribed limits and to recover excess HRA.

Subsequently, the Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries, Jammu, issued a communication dated 02.07.2010 for compliance.

The applicants contend that these orders were wrongly interpreted and applied to them, leading to the stoppage of their HRA, despite employees in the adjacent Government Higher Secondary School Ghou Manhasan continuing to receive it.

Representations to authorities were unsuccessful, with applicants being told HRA would only be released if they obtained court directions.

The respondents contended that the applicants' school falls outside the municipal limits of Jammu Municipal Corporation, making them ineligible for higher HRA rates.

They further stated that some employees in the same institution receive higher HRA only due to specific directions from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in separate cases, and that the applicants cannot claim parity without similar judicial orders.

Whether the Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010 and the communication dated 02.07.2010 were wrongly interpreted and applied to the applicants, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory denial of House Rent Allowance (HRA).

Whether the applicants are entitled to the release of House Rent Allowance (HRA) and its arrears on par with other similarly situated employees working in the same institution.

The court primarily applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently without a reasonable basis.

It relied on the precedent from Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1975) 4 SCC 71 4, which held that once a relief is granted to one group of employees, it must be extended to other similarly situated employees, and the State cannot compel individuals to approach the court separately.

Additionally, the tribunal reiterated the established principle from Sant Ram Sharma vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910, that executive instructions may supplement but cannot override statutory rules.

The Tribunal noted that it was undisputed that the applicants were serving in Government Middle School, Ghou Manhasan, and that some employees of the very same institution were receiving HRA at higher rates due to directions from the Hon'ble High Court.

The court found that this admission by the respondents negated their argument and established that the applicants were identically situated to those receiving HRA.

The court reasoned that denying the same benefit to the applicants, despite their similar situation, violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal further noted that the State cannot adopt a policy of granting benefits only to those who approach the court.

Applying the principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules, the Tribunal held that any executive directions, such as Government Order No. 185-F of 2010, could not be interpreted to result in discriminatory treatment among employees within the same institution.

Therefore, the respondents' justification for denying HRA to the applicants, while others in the same school received it based on court orders, was deemed unacceptable.

The Tribunal held that the applicants cannot be discriminated against and are entitled to the same benefit of House Rent Allowance as granted to similarly situated employees working in Government Middle School/Government Higher Secondary School Ghou Manhasan.

The respondents were directed to grant HRA to the applicants at the same rate and terms extended to other similarly situated employees and to release the arrears of HRA from the date the benefit was granted to similarly situated employees.

This exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of the order's receipt.

The Contempt Petition No. 49/2025 was closed as the main Original Application was disposed of.