Headline: Similarly situated employees entitled to equal HRA benefits regardless of prior litigation involvement.

The applicants, comprising 14 individuals serving in various capacities (Auditors, Assistant Audit Officers, Senior Audit Officers, Clerks, Postal Assistant, Deputy Accountant General) within the Principal Accountant General, Mizoram, or other central government offices, filed an Original Application seeking the grant of House Rent Allowance (HRA) at 'B' class city rates.

They were posted at Aizawl or other specified locations.

The applicants contended that similarly situated employees in the same department in Aizawl and Kohima, Nagaland, had previously been granted HRA at 'B' class rates through various judgments, some of which were upheld by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Specifically, cases like O.A. No. 230/2004 (upheld by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 1035/2007 and Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) CC13260/2010), and O.A. No. 044/00267/2017, O.A. No. 044/00425/2019, and O.A. No. 044/00007/2022 had resulted in the grant of 'B' class HRA.

The respondents, representing the Union of India, Comptroller & Auditor General of India, and Principal Accountant General, Mizoram, argued that HRA is granted based on city population, and Aizawl was classified as a 'Z' class city under the 6th and 7th CPC, making employees eligible for 10% of Basic Pay.

They admitted that the benefit was extended only to those who were parties to previous OAs and denied to the present applicants because they were not parties.

1. Whether the applicants, being similarly situated employees, are entitled to the benefit of HRA at 'B' class city rates with retrospective effect and arrears, in line with previous judgments granted to other employees of the same department.

2. Whether the respondents are justified in denying the HRA benefit to the present applicants solely on the ground that they were not parties to the previous Original Applications, despite the issue concerning an established principle of law.

The Tribunal applied the principle of parity, holding that once a legal principle regarding an entitlement, such as HRA, is established through judicial pronouncements, especially those upheld by higher courts, including the Supreme Court, it should be uniformly applied to all similarly situated employees without discrimination.

The Tribunal also implicitly referred to the doctrine of precedent, where existing judgments on the same issue should guide decisions in similar cases.

The core legal rule invoked was that "if the applicants are found to be similarly situated, the benefit of aforesaid judgment be extended by granting benefit of HRA @ ‘B’ class city i.e. 20% of the Basic Pay to the applicants with all consequential benefits".

The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides.

It noted that previous judgments, specifically O.A. No. 230/2004, which directed the ascertainment of 'B' class city rates for employees in Kohima, Nagaland, was upheld by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, giving it finality.

The Tribunal also acknowledged that the respondent department had implemented the orders from O.A. No. 044/00267/2017, O.A. No. 044/00425/2019, and O.A. No. 044/00007/2022 for the parties involved.

The respondents' reasoning for denying the benefit to the current applicants was solely based on them not being parties to these previous OAs.

However, the Tribunal emphasized that once a principle regarding fixation of HRA is laid down by a competent court and gains finality through Apex Court's decision, it must be applied to all similarly situated persons, irrespective of whether they were individual parties to the prior litigation.

The Tribunal found that denying the HRA benefit to similarly situated employees, despite earlier judgments establishing the entitlement, goes against principles of fairness and uniformity.

This implementation is to be completed within two months from the receipt of the order.

The O.A. was disposed of, with no order as to costs.