Similarly situated employees must receive analogous HRA benefits or a reasoned, speaking order distinguishing their claims.

The 44 applicants, employees of the Geological Survey of India posted in and around Dimapur, Nagaland, challenged the respondents’ refusal to grant House Rent Allowance (“HRA”) at the rate applicable to “B”/“Y” class cities.

They sought to set aside the communication dated 11 August 2025 and the related replies dated 12 November 2024 and 12 February 2025, and claimed HRA at 20% of basic pay under the applicable recommendations of the Pay Commissions, along with arrears and consequential benefits.

Applicants 2, 14 and 30–40 additionally claimed the alleged shortfall arising from payment of HRA at 10% instead of 20% during the Sixth Central Pay Commission period.

The applicants relied on earlier decisions of the Tribunal, the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court, contending that Dimapur and Kohima had been treated as “B”/“Y” class locations for HRA purposes and that similarly situated Central Government employees in other departments were receiving HRA at the higher rate.

The respondents maintained that Dimapur was classified as a “Z” class city under the applicable rules and that the extant provisions did not permit grant of the higher rate of HRA generally.

They also relied on the Department of Expenditure’s position and its Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017.

1. Whether the applicants, being Central Government employees posted at Dimapur, were entitled to HRA at the rate applicable to “B”/“Y” class cities rather than the rate applicable to “Z” class cities

2. Whether applicants 2, 14 and 30–40 were entitled to arrears or differential HRA for the Sixth Pay Commission period, when they had allegedly been paid at 10% instead of 20%

3. Whether the respondents were required to extend to the applicants the benefit of earlier Tribunal decisions granting similar relief to similarly situated employees, or to pass a reasoned and speaking order distinguishing the applicants’ cases

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The determination of HRA was governed by the applicable Central Government orders and classification of cities under the Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commission regimes, including the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that similarly situated government employees should ordinarily receive the benefit of a judicial determination in favour of employees similarly placed, relying on Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022, as cited by the applicants.

It further relied on the principle of consistency with earlier decisions of the Tribunal concerning HRA payable to Central Government employees posted in Nagaland.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ claim was substantially covered by earlier decisions concerning the classification of Dimapur and the entitlement of similarly situated Central Government employees to HRA at the higher rate.

Although the respondents relied on the “Z” city classification and the Department of Expenditure’s contrary administrative position, the Tribunal considered the existence of a series of prior orders granting relief on the same or similar issue.

Rather than independently deciding the merits of the classification question, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine whether the present applicants were similarly situated to the employees covered by those decisions.

If so, the same benefits were to be extended; if not, the respondents were required to provide the applicants an opportunity of hearing and issue a reasoned and speaking order explaining the distinguishing circumstances.

The respondents were directed to determine whether the applicants were similarly situated to the employees who had obtained relief in the earlier cases cited in the record and, if so, to grant them similar benefits.

If the respondents sought to distinguish the applicants’ claims, they were required to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order identifying the relevant distinctions.

The exercise was to be completed within four months from receipt of the order.

The Tribunal did not itself finally award HRA at 20% or arrears; the pending M.A., if any, was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.