Similarly situated Kasauli employees must receive Remote Locality Allowance at Shimla rates.

The applicants, employees of the Military Engineer Services posted at Kasauli, sought Remote Locality Allowance (“RLA”) at the rates applicable to Shimla under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Government policy had classified Shimla as a Category-I remote locality but did not grant Kasauli the same classification, although the applicants contended that Kasauli was no less remote or developed than Shimla.

In O.A. No. 92/HP/1988, the Tribunal directed payment of RLA to employees at Kasauli at Shimla rates, and the decision attained finality after dismissal of the Supreme Court’s SLP.

Subsequently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Ratan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., CWP No. 2083/2007, by judgment dated 19 June 2018, held that similarly situated employees at Kasauli were entitled to RLA at Shimla rates until the Government took a fresh decision.

The benefit was implemented for the original petitioners and later extended to employees in O.A. No. 544/2021, Sunil Dutt & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., and O.A. No. 063/314/2023.

The present applicants made a representation dated 27 August 2025 seeking identical treatment, but the respondents did not grant the benefit.

The respondents opposed the claim on the ground that, under the Ministry of Finance policy and subsequent clarifications, Kasauli was placed in Group VIII under the Himachal Pradesh classification and correspondingly in Group IV under the Central Government classification; it had never been classified at par with Shimla for RLA purposes.

Whether the applicants, being similarly situated employees posted at Kasauli, were entitled to RLA at the rates applicable to Shimla despite not being parties to the earlier proceedings?

Whether the respondents could deny the applicants the benefit of the binding judgment in CWP No. 2083/2007 and the subsequently implemented Tribunal decisions granting RLA at Shimla rates to similarly placed employees?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants invoked its jurisdiction.

It relied on the binding effect and uniform application of judicial decisions to similarly situated employees, particularly the principle that administrative authorities should extend the benefit of a judgment to all identically placed employees rather than compel each employee to initiate separate litigation.

This principle was drawn from K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCT 341; Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 (2) SCT 54; and Union of India & Anr. v. Lalita S. Rao & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1972.

The Tribunal also followed the earlier decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ratan Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., CWP No. 2083/2007, and the Tribunal’s decisions in Sunil Dutt & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 544/2021, and O.A. No. 063/314/2023, which recognised entitlement to RLA at Shimla rates for similarly situated Kasauli employees.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were similarly situated to employees who had already received RLA at Shimla rates pursuant to the High Court judgment and the Tribunal’s subsequent orders.

Although the respondents relied on the Government’s classification policy, the Tribunal considered the issue settled by the earlier judicial pronouncements and their implementation in favour of counterpart employees.

Applying the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated employees, the Tribunal held that the respondents had no justification for restricting the benefit only to the original litigants.

Requiring the present applicants to secure the same relief through separate proceedings would be contrary to the principle that a judicially determined benefit should be extended to all employees identically placed.

The respondents were directed to extend to the applicants the same RLA benefits granted to their counterparts pursuant to the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment dated 19 June 2018 in CWP No. 2083/2007 and the Tribunal’s orders dated 29 September 2021 in O.A. No. 544/2021 and 28 July 2023 in O.A. No. 063/314/2023.

The requisite orders were directed to be issued within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.