MEA Security Assistant Posted To Non-Family Damascus Station Gets Delhi HRA Arrears With Interest After Tribunal Finds Unequal Treatment

The applicant, a Delhi Police Constable, joined the Ministry of External Affairs’ Bureau of Security on deputation in February 2014 and was posted as an India-Based Security Assistant at the Embassy of India, Damascus, from September 2014 to August 2015.

He sought compensation for alleged short payment of foreign allowance, unpaid overtime and conveyance allowance, and non-payment of HRA for his family’s residence in India while he served at Damascus, a non-family station.

The Ministry rejected his claim by order dated 29 September 2016, following which he filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal ultimately considered whether he was entitled to HRA for the relevant posting.

The OA was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the procedural basis for an application to the Tribunal.

The applicant invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which protect against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment and secure equality in public employment.

The Tribunal applied the principle that similarly situated employees should not be treated differently without a rational basis; it found no applicable rule or instruction establishing the applicant’s claimed entitlement to higher foreign allowance, overtime, or conveyance allowance.

The Tribunal rejected the claims for higher foreign allowance and conveyance allowance because the applicant had accepted the deputation terms and the applicable grade pay, and had not identified a rule entitling him to the higher amounts claimed; the respondents also stated that foreign allowance was linked to functional rank, not grade pay.

The overtime claim was unsupported by conclusive evidence or an applicable instruction providing overtime or compensatory days off.

On HRA, the respondents stated that payment for Damascus was approved only prospectively from September 2020, but the Tribunal found that the applicant had not received HRA for his family in India and treated the record as showing that other staff posted at Damascus had been allowed accommodation or HRA in Delhi.

It held that withholding the benefit from the applicant, while allowing it to other staff, was discriminatory and that the prospective cut-off date lacked a rational basis.

The applicant was held entitled to HRA for his tenure as Security Assistant at Damascus, at the rate applicable to him while posted at the Bureau of Security in Delhi.

The respondents were directed to pay the arrears with interest at applicable GPF rates within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The other compensation claims were not granted, and there was no order as to costs.