Similarly situated SIB employees posted in Nagaland are entitled to 10% monthly-pay licence-fee compensation.

The 89 applicants, serving or formerly serving in various Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts under the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, claimed payment of licence fee at 10% of their monthly pay as compensation in lieu of rent-free accommodation during their postings in Nagaland, particularly at Kohima.

Their claim was founded on Government memoranda dated 13.11.1987 and 21.02.2014 and earlier decisions concerning similarly situated employees.

The applicants had previously filed O.A. No. 265/2023, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider their representation in light of the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 46/0019/2020, Raj Kumar & Others v. Union of India & Others.

The respondents thereafter rejected the claim by a speaking memorandum dated 16.01.2024, contending that the applicable Government instructions prescribed licence fee at fixed rates rather than 10% of pay, and that the earlier benefit granted in Raj Kumar had been implemented only to avoid contempt proceedings.

The applicants challenged the memorandum dated 16.01.2024 and sought the same benefit granted in Raj Kumar and earlier cases concerning employees posted in Nagaland.

Whether the applicants, being similarly situated to the employees in O.A. No. 46/0019/2020, were entitled to licence fee at 10% of monthly pay as compensation in lieu of rent-free accommodation during their postings in Nagaland.

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicants’ claim on the ground that the Government memoranda prescribed only fixed rates of licence fee and not payment at 10% of pay.

Whether the applicants were entitled to parity with the beneficiaries of the final and implemented order in Raj Kumar & Others v. Union of India & Others.

The Tribunal relied on the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 13.11.1987 and the Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum dated 21.02.2014 concerning licence fee and rent-free accommodation.

It applied the principle of judicial consistency and equal treatment of similarly situated employees, particularly the Tribunal’s order dated 06.11.2000 in O.A. No. 143/1999, Krishna Sinha & 267 Others v. Union of India & Others, which directed payment of licence fee at 10% of monthly pay from 01.07.1987 or the date of actual posting in Nagaland, whichever was later.

The Tribunal further relied on the Gauhati High Court’s order dated 21.02.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 830/2013 and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the respondents’ Special Leave Petition, as well as the Tribunal’s order dated 10.12.2020 in O.A. No. 46/0019/2020, Raj Kumar & Others v. Union of India & Others, which followed the same principle.

Once the order in Raj Kumar had not been challenged and had been implemented, similarly situated employees were held entitled to equivalent treatment.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ claim was materially identical to the claim adjudicated in Raj Kumar, where the Tribunal had directed payment of 10% compensation in lieu of rent-free accommodation and the order had been implemented by the respondents.

Although the respondents relied on the 1987 and 2014 memoranda to contend that only fixed licence-fee rates were permissible, the Tribunal treated the earlier decisions in Krishna Sinha, the Gauhati High Court proceedings and Raj Kumar as controlling for the similarly situated applicants.

The respondents’ explanation that the earlier benefit had been granted merely to avoid contempt could not justify denying parity where the relevant order had attained finality and had already been implemented.

Accordingly, the rejection memorandum dated 16.01.2024 was not sustained.

The respondents were directed to extend the equivalent benefit to the present applicants within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.