HRA parity claims must be assessed against similarly situated employees, with reasoned orders where parity is denied.

The 91 applicants, employees of the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Manipur, sought House Rent Allowance (HRA) at “B” class city rates, with arrears, contending that they were entitled to the same treatment as employees in other North-Eastern States.

They relied on earlier Tribunal orders, including O.A. No. 44/0083/2021 and O.A. No. 44/425/2019, which had directed consideration of similarly situated employees’ claims

The respondents maintained that Imphal was classified as a “Z” city under the Ministry of Finance’s 7 July 2017 Office Memorandum and that HRA at 8% of basic pay applied

At the hearing, the applicants’ counsel sought a direction to consider and compare their cases with those in the earlier O.As., rather than pressing for an immediate award of the claimed rate

1. Whether the applicants’ HRA claims should be considered by comparing their circumstances with those of the applicants in O.A. No. 44/0083/2021 and O.A. No. 44/425/2019

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct payment of “B” class city HRA and arrears, or instead require the respondents to determine the applicants’ entitlement through a reasoned decision

The Tribunal referred to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017, under which the respondents said Imphal was classified as a “Z” city and HRA at 8% of basic pay was applicable

It also relied on its prior orders in O.A. No. 44/0083/2021 and O.A. No. 44/425/2019 as the basis for directing a comparison of the applicants’ circumstances with those of the employees concerned in those cases

The order did not determine a general legal entitlement to “B” class city rates; it required equivalent treatment only if the applicants were found to be similarly situated.

Although the applicants initially sought “B” class city HRA with arrears, their counsel limited the requested relief to consideration of their cases in light of the two earlier O.As.

The respondents did not oppose that request, subject to the applicable rules

The Tribunal therefore did not resolve the competing claims about Imphal’s classification or decide whether the applicants were substantively entitled to the higher rate. Instead, it directed the respondents to verify whether the applicants were similarly situated to the employees in the cited O.As.; if so, similar benefits were to be extended, and if not, the respondents were to give reasons

No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of