Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Shri K Kossom Konyak vs M/O Home Affairs on 22 February, 2022
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 046/00108/2020
Date of Order: This, the 22nd day of February 2022
THE HON'BLE MR. NEKKHOMANG NEIHSIAL, MEMBER (A)
Between:
1. Shri K. Kossom Konyak age about 48 years
Son of Shri Khole Konyak
Resident of SIB Office, Near TCP Gate
Kohima, Nagaland
Pin No. 797001.
2. Shri Ranjit Gohain age about 35 years
Son of Late Lakhaswar Gogain
Resident of SIB, Office, Near TCP Gate
Kohima, Nagaland
Pin No. 797001.
3. Shri Apise A. Sangtam age about 32 years
Son of Late L.A. Sangtam
Resident of DC Ward, Near SDEO Office
Kiphire - 798611, Nagaland.
4. Shri John C. Thomas age about 38 years
Son of Shri Thomas Kutty
Resident of SIB, Office
Post Box No. 04
Kohima, Nagaland - 797001.
5. Shri Kezhongoto Khieya
Son of Shri Kevipora Khieya
Resident of SBI, Office
2
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
3
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
4
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
5
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
6
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
7
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
8
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
9
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
10
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
11
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
12
From 2nd page to 12th page, printed from whatsapp
(scanned)
13
-AND-
1. The Union of India represented by the
Secretary, Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block
Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
North Block, Lok Nayak Bhawan
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Director, Intelligence Bureau
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India, New Delhi - 110001.
4. The Joint Director
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau
Kohima, Nagaland, Pin - 797001.
5. The Assistant Director/E
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau
Kohima, Nagaland, Pin - 797001.
...Respondents
Adv. For applicants: Sri Anirban Chakraborty for Sri U.K. Nair,
Sr. Advocate and Ms. N. Shyamal
Adv. For respondents: Sri A. Kundu, Addl. CGSC
*********************
14
O R D E R (ORAL)
NEKKHOMANG NEIHSIAL, MEMBER (A):-
This O.A. has been filed by the applicants through Sri U.K. Nair, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Anirban Chakraborty seeking for the following reliefs:
8.1 To direct the respondents to grant H.R.A. to the applicants @ 20% w.e.f. the date of coming into force of the 6th CPC recommendations with all consequential benefits., for the tenure of their service at Nagaland;
8.2 To direct the respondents to grant H.R.A. to the applicants @ 16% w.e.f July, 2017 onwards with all consequential benefits, for the tenure of their service at Nagaland;
8.3 To direct the respondents to grant interest @ 10% on the arrear H.R.A. to be paid to the applicants with all consequential benefits, for the tenure of their service at Nagaland;
8.4 Cost of the application; and 8.5 To pass any such order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
2. At the outset of argument, Sri Anirban Chakraborty for Sri U.K. Nair, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that this matter is exactly similar with the O.A. No. 046/00378/2019 where this Tribunal vide its order dated 25.11.2021 observed and passed order as follows:
15"The applicants in this O.A. claimed to have been working in Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB), Kohima under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Like other Central Government employees in the station, they claim to be entitled for H.R.A. at the rate of 20% under 6th CPC in terms of the direction of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 282/2013 relating to similarly situated persons. They also claim to be entitled for H.R.A. at the rate of 16%, consequent to the O.M. dated 07.07.2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. Since, they have been granted only 8% of H.R.A. whereas similarly situated persons working in other Central Government Offices are paid at the rate of 16%, this discrimination has cost a serious heartburning and resentment among the applicants. The respondents filed their written statement on 20.03.2020. They have narrated the manner in which they have been implementing recommendations and acceptance of the Government of India in regard to the 6th CPC and also the implementation of this Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 282/2013 dated 03.02.2015. They pointed out that in terms of 6th CPC recommendations, Ministry of Finance vide its O.M. dated 21.07.2015, the whole of the state of Nagaland had been placed under "Z" class city for the purpose of H.R.A. Accordingly, benefit of H.R.A. at the rate of "Y" class city to the applicants was restricted up to 31.03.2015 and thereafter at the rate of "Z" class city i.e. 10% of the basic pay.
3. The case was finally heard on 18.11.2021. During the hearing, Sri V.K. Bhatra, Sr. CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities pointed out that the order of this Tribunal was agreed to by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 25.12.2016. However, subsequent to this order, another memorandum dated 07.07.2017 was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. According to Sri Bhatra, there is certain modification in this subsequent order and if the applicants are not covered by this one, they cannot claim the benefit which was already passed by this Tribunal prior to this particular date of 07th July, 2017. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the case was reserved for orders.
4. On perusal of the submissions made by Sri A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant, it is 16 observed that the applicants are basically claiming the same benefits as ordered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 282/2013 vide order dated 03.02.2015, then in O.A. No. 002/2016 dated 08.01.2016 and again in O.A. No. 346/2017 on the basis of communications dated 26.06.2019. A copy of this Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 091/2020 dated 13.03.2020 has also been supplied to the court. Copies of these orders of this Tribunal had been perused.
5. In O.A. No. 282/2013 dated 3rd Feb, 2015; this Tribunal had passed an order which is extracted below:
"There are many Central Government Departments in the State of Nagaland i.e. Post and Telegraph Department, CPWD, Census, All India Radio etc. and all such Department either they are posted in Kohima and Dimapur or in any part of the State are all getting H.R.A. at the rate of 20% irrespective of their place of posting and classification."
Against the aforesaid statement, the respondents in their written statement filed 04.03.2014 never made any comment even did not make any averments in regards to the said paragraph.
ii) Thus, it is abundantly clear that the respondent authority at their whims by violating the Court's order as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, stopped the H.R.A. as admissible by the applicants.
iii) By taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, I am of the view that the impugned memorandum dated 22.02.2013 being devoid of application of mind is hereby quashed and respondents are directed to verify the factual details and if the applicants are found to be similarly situated, the benefit of aforementioned judgments be extended by granting benefit of H.R.A. at the rate of "Y" class city i.e. 20% of the Basic Pay to the applicants with all consequential benefits, within a period 17 of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order."
6. In O.A. No. 0002/2016 dated 08.01.2016, this Tribunal had passed an order which is also being extracted below:
"By taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, we are of the view that the impugned memorandum dated 22.02.2013 being devoid of application of mind is hereby quashed and respondents are directed to verify the actual details and if the applicants are found to be similarly situated, the benefit of aforementioned judgments be extended by granting benefit of H.R.A. at the rate of "B" class city i.e. 20% of the Basic Pay to the applicants with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7. In O.A. No. 0091/2020 dated 13.03.2020, this Tribunal had passed another order as under:
"Keeping in view of the above and to keep uniformity in the judgment, the O.A. is hereby disposed of in the line with the judgment and order dated 03.02.2015 passed in O.A. No. 282/2013 passed by this Tribunal and respondents are directed to verify the factual details and if they are found to be similarly situated, the benefits of judgment cited herein may be extended by granting them benefits as claimed in this O.A. with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
8. A copy of the O.M. No.20/Admn(C)/2016(1)-1402 dated 25.12.2016 issued by the respondent authorities i.e. Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government 18 of India has also been enclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant wherein it has been recorded as under:
"The matter has been examined in consultation with MHA/Mol (Deptt. of Expenditure). Deptt. of Expenditure vide their ID No. 2(3)/2013 E.ii(B) dated 14.12.2016 has decided to implement the CAT order dated 08.01.2016 for payment of H.R.A. at applicable rates in respect of applicants only."
9. The respondent authorities also enclosed a copy of their order no. I.D. No.2 (3)/2013-E-II(B) dated 14.12.2016 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure by which they have implemented this Tribunal's order dated 08.01.2016 passed in O.A. No. 040/0002/2016.
10. Keeping in view of the above, it is held that this Tribunal does not need to go into further details as regards to the applicability of the claim of the applicants in regard to the above orders of this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 282/2013, 002/2016 and 0091/2020.
11. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to examine the claim of the applicants and grant the same benefit if they found to be similarly situated with the individuals of the aforesaid orders (Supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in case of anyone of the applicant is found to be not entitled, a detailed speaking order shall be issued by them in this regard.
12. With the above directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants as well as after perusal of the aforesaid orders (supra), the respondent authorities are hereby 19 directed to examine the claim of the applicants and grant the same benefit if they are found to be similarly situated with the individuals of the aforesaid orders (Supra) with immediate effect. However, in case of anyone of the applicants is found to be not entitled, a detailed speaking order shall be issued by them in this regard.
4. With the aforesaid directions, O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(NEKKHOMANG NEIHSIAL) MEMBER (A) PB