Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Kamaljit Bedi vs Finance Department on 12 March, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 879/2024
Along With
Contempt Petition No. 49/2025
Reserved on:- 30.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 12.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
1. O.A/879/2024
1. Kamaljeet Bedi, age 56 years W/o Sh. Manjit Singh Bedi R/o 97
Gurha Bakshi Nagar Jammu. Pin-180001
2. Ameet Kour Sudan, age 41 years W/o Sh. Karanjeet Singh R/o
Ajit Colony camp, Gole Gujral, Jammu. Pin.180003
3. Asha, age 41 years W/o Sh.Vishal Bangotra R/o H.No. 32 Indra
colony, Tałab Tillo, Jammu. Pin-l80003
4. Megha Koul, age 42 years W/o Sh. Yogesh Khajuria R/o H.No. 8
Lane No. 1 opp. Amar colony camp road, Talab Tillo, Jamnu. Pin-
180003
5. Deepali Gupta, age 44 years W/o Sh. Puvender Gupta R/o
H.No.30/70 near Royal Apartment, Hazuri Bagh, Tallab Tillo,
Jammu. Pin-180003
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025
6. Anju Bala, age 57 years W/o Sh. Markandey Sharma R/o D/45
Lane 4 Upper Shiv Nagar Jammu. Pin-18000
7. Poonam Lata, age 48 years D/o Sh. Chaman Lal R/o 434, Bakshi
Nagar, Jammu Pin180001
...Applicants
(By Advocate: - Mr. Sudershan Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of J&K Through commissioner/Secretary to
Govt., Finance Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu/Srinagar. 180001.
2. Director School Education Department, Jammu- 181205.
3. Joint Director, Accounts & Treasuries Jammu- 180001.
4. Treasury Officer, Add. Treasury, Talab Tillo. Jammu. -
180002.
5. Zonal Education Officer, Marh, Tehsil Marh, Jammu. Pin-
181122.
6. Headmaster Government Middle School, Ghou Manhasan,
Jammu Pin Code- 181122.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. AAG, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld.
AAG)
2. CP/49/2025
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025
1. Kamaljeet Bedi, age 56 years W/o Sh. Manjit Singh Bedi R/o 97
Gurha Bakshi Nagar Jammu. Pin-180001
2. Ameet Kour Sudan, age 41 years W/o Sh. Karanjeet Singh R/o
Ajit Colony camp, Gole Gujral, Jammu. Pin.180003
3. Asha, age 41 years W/o Sh.Vishal Bangotra R/o H.No. 32 Indra
colony, Tałab Tillo, Jammu. Pin-l80003
4. Megha Koul, age 42 years W/o Sh. Yogesh Khajuria R/o H.No. 8
Lane No. 1 opp. Amar colony camp road, Talab Tillo, Jamnu. Pin-
180003
5. Deepali Gupta, age 44 years W/o Sh. Puvender Gupta R/o
H.No.30/70 near Royal Apartment, Hazuri Bagh, Tallab Tillo,
Jammu. Pin-180003
6. Anju Bala, age 57 years W/o Sh. Markandey Sharma R/o D/45
Lane 4 Upper Shiv Nagar Jammu. Pin-18000
7. Poonam Lata, age 48 years D/o Sh. Chaman Lal R/o 434, Bakshi
Nagar, Jammu Pin180001
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Sudershan Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Sh. Santosh K. Vaidya (Union territory of J&K) Through
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.. Finance Department, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu Srinagar, 180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025
2. Ashok Sharma Director School Education Department, Jammu
181205
3. Rakesh ke Ratli. Joint Director, Accounts & Treasuries,
Jammu-180001
4. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Treasury Officer Add. Treasury, Talab
Tillo, Jammu 180002
5. Sh. Ram Rakha Zonal Education Officer, Marh Tehsil Marh,
Jammu-181122
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. AAG, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld.
AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) "Prayer seeking quashing of Govt. Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010 and also quashing the communication dated 02.07.2010 issued by the respondent no. 3 & 4 to the extent it is being made applicable to the applicant on the wrong interpretation of law and facts.
b) Prayer seeking direction upon the respondents particularly respondent no.5 to release House Allowance Rent (HRA) in favour of the applicants, on the same analogy and at par with the other similarly situated employees of the school education department, Jammu.
c) Prayer seeking direction upon the respondents to release the arrears of HRA due to the applicants from the date same have HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 accrued and till the time the same are paid to them, in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
d) Such other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicants, who are citizens of India and permanent residents of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, are substantive employees of the School Education Department and are presently posted in Government Middle School, Ghou Manhasan, Zone Marh, District Jammu. They have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010 and the consequential communication dated 02.07.2010 issued by the Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries, Jammu, to the extent the same have been made HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 applicable to them, and for a direction to the respondents to release House Rent Allowance (HRA) along with arrears.
b) The applicants submit that under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance) Rules, 1992, Government servants whose place of duty falls within the qualifying limits of a city are entitled to draw House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance irrespective of the place of residence.
The said rules were amended from time to time and the Finance Department issued SRO 95 dated 15.04.2009 and later SRO 226 dated 28.05.2010, whereby the rate of HRA payable to Government employees was revised. As per the revised structure, employees falling under the "Y" category were entitled to HRA at the rate of 17.5% of basic pay with effect from 01.06.2010 and thereafter 20% from 01.06.2011 onwards.
c) According to the applicants, prior to the impugned action they were continuously receiving HRA in accordance with the aforesaid statutory rules. The institutions where they were posted had historically been treated as falling within the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 qualifying area for payment of HRA, and employees working in those institutions were drawing the allowance without interruption. The applicants contend that their place of posting falls within a distance of approximately 5.5 kilometers from the periphery of the Jammu Municipal limits, which is within the prescribed radius of 8 kilometers, and therefore they are entitled to the same rate of HRA as admissible to employees working within Jammu city. They rely upon certificates issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division Satwari to establish the distance between Government Higher Secondary School Ghou Manhasan and the municipal limits.
d) It is further pleaded that despite the statutory rules governing the field, the Finance Department issued Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010, directing Treasury Officers of Jammu City and adjoining treasuries to stop payment of HRA in respect of Drawing and Disbursing Officers whose offices were located outside the prescribed limits of Jammu Municipal Corporation and to take steps for recovery of excess HRA wherever it had been drawn in violation of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 rules. Subsequently, the Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries, Jammu issued a communication dated 02.07.2010 seeking compliance of the said order.
e) The applicants contend that the said order and communication were wrongly interpreted by the respondents and were applied to them without any legal basis. According to them, even after issuance of the aforesaid order, employees working in the adjoining Government Higher Secondary School Ghou Manhasan, which shares its boundary with the applicants' school, continued to receive HRA as their institutions fall within the permissible distance from the municipal limits. However, the applicants were denied the same benefit without issuance of any specific order or justification.
f) Aggrieved by the stoppage of HRA, the applicants submitted representations to the concerned authorities requesting release of the allowance along with arrears. It is alleged that the authorities failed to take any action and informed the applicants that the allowance would be released only if they obtained directions from the Court. The applicants also contend that HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 similar issues had earlier been raised before the Hon'ble High Court and before this Tribunal in other matters, wherein interim protection had been granted to similarly situated employees.
g) The applicants therefore submit that the impugned action of the respondents in denying HRA is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the statutory rules governing the grant of House Rent Allowance. They further contend that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules and that denial of HRA in their case, while similarly situated employees continue to receive the same, amounts to violation of their service rights. On these grounds, the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned orders and release of HRA with arrears.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have filed their written statement opposing the Original Application and have raised certain preliminary objections. It is contended that the application is not maintainable as the applicants have failed to disclose any HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 genuine cause of action and no legal or constitutional right of the applicants has been infringed by the respondents. It is further alleged that the applicants have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and have suppressed material facts, and therefore the application deserves dismissal.
b) On merits, the respondents submit that during the year 2010 the Director, Audit and Inspection pointed out that certain Drawing and Disbursing Officers in areas adjoining Srinagar city, which were outside the limits of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation, had drawn House Rent Allowance for their employees at higher rates in contravention of the existing rules. In view of this audit observation, the Finance Department issued Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010, directing recovery of excess HRA and instructing Treasury Officers to identify offices located outside municipal limits where HRA had been drawn at higher rates.
c) Pursuant to the said Government Order, the Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries, Jammu issued a communication dated 02.07.2010 to the Treasury Officer, Talab Tillo seeking a report HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 regarding drawal of HRA at higher rates by certain Drawing and Disbursing Officers and the action taken for recovery.
According to the respondents, the said instructions were issued strictly in accordance with the prevailing rules and in the interest of safeguarding the Government exchequer. Therefore, the impugned Government Order and communication cannot be quashed as prayed for by the applicants.
d) The respondents further submit that the applicants are posted at Government Middle School, Ghou Manhasan, Zone Marh, which falls outside the municipal limits of the Jammu Municipal Corporation. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance) Rules, 1992, the higher rate of HRA is admissible only to offices located within municipal limits. Consequently, the applicants are not entitled to draw HRA at the higher rate applicable to Jammu city.
e) It is also stated that some employees of the same institution are receiving HRA at higher rates only because of specific directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 Kashmir in separate cases. The respondents maintain that the applicants cannot claim parity with such employees unless similar judicial directions are obtained. The respondents further contend that as per the relevant rules and subsequent notifications, including SRO 192 of 2018 dated 01.04.2018 and SO 372 dated 01.11.2021, the applicants are not eligible for HRA at the higher rates of 16% or 18% applicable to municipal areas, and they are only entitled to the lower rate of HRA admissible to employees posted outside municipal limits.
f) The respondents therefore submit that the impugned action is fully justified under the applicable rules and that the applicants have no enforceable right to claim HRA at the higher rate. Accordingly, they pray that the Original Application be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010 and the consequential communication dated 02.07.2010 issued by the Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries, Jammu to the extent the same have been made applicable to the applicants, and for issuance of directions to the respondents to release House Rent Allowance (HRA) in favour of the applicants along with arrears.
6. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that they are substantive employees of the School Education Department, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and are presently working in Government Middle School, Ghou Manhasan, Zone Marh, District Jammu. According to the applicants, under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance) Rules, 1992, Government employees whose place of duty falls within the qualifying limits of a city are entitled to House Rent Allowance at the rates prescribed under the rules. The applicants submit that their place of posting falls within the prescribed distance from the municipal limits of Jammu city and therefore they are entitled to draw HRA at the same rate as admissible to employees falling under the relevant category.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 15 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025
7. It is further submitted that the applicants were earlier receiving HRA in accordance with the statutory rules. However, the Finance Department issued Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010 directing Treasury Officers to stop payment of HRA in respect of Drawing and Disbursing Officers whose offices fall outside the prescribed municipal limits and to take steps for recovery of excess HRA wherever drawn. Subsequently, the Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries issued a communication dated 02.07.2010 seeking compliance of the said order.
8. The grievance of the applicants is that the said order has been wrongly interpreted by the respondents and applied to them arbitrarily, resulting in stoppage of HRA. According to the applicants, the institution where they are presently working falls within the prescribed radius from the periphery of Jammu Municipal limits and therefore they are entitled to HRA in terms of the statutory rules. The applicants further submit that employees working in the adjoining Government Higher Secondary School Ghou Manhasan, which shares the same boundary with the applicants' school, are receiving HRA at higher rates, whereas the applicants have been denied the same benefit HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 without any valid justification. The applicants contend that such denial of HRA is arbitrary and discriminatory.
9. The applicants also state that representations were submitted before the authorities requesting release of HRA but no effective action was taken. It is further alleged that the applicants were informed that HRA would be released only if they obtained directions from the Court, which compelled them to approach this Tribunal by filing the present application.
10. The respondents have filed their written statement opposing the Original Application. It is submitted by the respondents that the application is not maintainable as no legal right of the applicants has been violated. The respondents state that the Director Audit and Inspection had pointed out certain irregularities in drawal of HRA by offices located outside municipal limits and accordingly the Finance Department issued Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010 directing recovery of excess HRA and identification of offices where HRA had been drawn in contravention of the rules.
11. The respondents further submit that the applicants are posted in Government Middle School, Ghou Manhasan, which falls outside the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 municipal limits of Jammu Municipal Corporation and therefore they are not entitled to HRA at higher rates applicable to municipal areas. It is also stated that some employees of the same institution are receiving HRA at higher rates only in compliance with directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in separate cases. According to the respondents, the applicants cannot claim the same benefit unless similar judicial directions are issued in their favour.
12. The issue involved in the present case is narrow and relates to denial of House Rent Allowance to the applicants while similarly situated employees working in the same institution are receiving the said allowance.
13. From the record it is not in dispute that the applicants are serving in Government Middle School, Ghou Manhasan. It is also not disputed by the respondents that certain employees of the same institution are receiving HRA at higher rates pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble High Court. Once this position is admitted, the respondents cannot deny the same benefit to the applicants who are identically situated and working in the same institution.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 18 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025
14. It is a settled principle of law that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently without any reasonable basis. The action of the State must satisfy the test of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once a benefit has been granted to one set of employees, the same cannot be denied to other employees who are similarly placed.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1975) 4 SCC 714, held that once a relief has been granted to one group of employees, the same benefit must be extended to other similarly situated employees and the State cannot compel each individual employee to approach the Court separately.
16. Further, it is also well settled that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules. In Sant Ram Sharma vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that executive instructions may supplement the rules but cannot override statutory provisions.
17. In the present case, the applicants claim entitlement to HRA under the statutory rules governing the grant of House Rent Allowance. The respondents have relied upon Government Order No. 185-F of 2010 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025 and subsequent communications. However, such executive directions cannot be interpreted in a manner which results in discriminatory treatment among employees working in the same institution.
18. The stand taken by the respondents that some employees are receiving HRA only because of court directions cannot be accepted as a valid ground to deny the same benefit to the applicants. The State cannot adopt a policy of granting benefits only to those employees who approach the Court while denying the same to others who are similarly situated.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the applicants cannot be discriminated against and are entitled to the same benefit of House Rent Allowance as has been granted to similarly situated employees working in the same institution.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant House Rent Allowance to the applicants at the same rate and on the same terms as has been extended to other similarly situated employees working in Government Middle School/Government Higher Secondary School Ghou Manhasan.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 20 :: O.A. No. 879/2024 & C.P 49/2025
21. The respondents shall also release the arrears of HRA due to the applicants from the date the said benefit was granted to similarly situated employees. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. Since the main Original Application stands disposed of, the Contempt Petition No. 49/2025 does not survive and is accordingly closed.
23. No order as to costs.
(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Judicial Member
/harshit /
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV