Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Priyam Mazumdar vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... on 6 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00286/2024
With
Misc. Application No. 040/00117/2025
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Shri Priyam Mazumdar,
Aged about 28 years,
Son of Tapan Mazumdar,
Presently serving as Auditor,
in the office of the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram, Khatla 796001.
Residential address - Gobindo Bhawan, ward no 4,
Bidhan Pally, Lumding, Assam 782447.
Phone:- 8403947828
Mail [email protected]
2. Shari Ranjan Kumar Sahoo,
Aged about 33 years,
S/O- Sujata Sahoo,
Presently serving as Assistant Audit Officer,
In the Office of the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram, Pin- 796001, Aizwal, Mizoram.
3. Shri Manish Kumar
S/o- Niranjan Sah,
Aged about 30yrs,
Presently serving as Assistant Audit Officer,
In the O/o the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram, Aizawl- 796001.
Phone no. -7677115450.
4. Thongjangam Baite,
S/o- (L) Jangkhosei Baite,
Aged about 44 years,
Presently serving as Senior Audit Officer,
In the O/O the Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Mizoram, Aizawl-796001.
O.A. No.286/2024 with
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
signed by
M.A. No. 117/2025
2
Phone No.-7005379485.
5. John Lalnunsang,
Son of Zothanghnem,
Aged about 36 years,
Presently serving as Assistant Audit Officer,
In the O/o the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram - 796001, Aizwal.
Phone No. - 9612406834.
6. Ms. Thanghminghlui,
Aged about 21 years,
Son of Lalnunzira,
Presently serving as Clerk,
In the O/o The Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram-796001, Aizwal.
Phone no -8798040135.
7. Shri K. Sanglungmuan,
Aged about 43 years,
Son of K. Nemsiam
Presently serving as Senior Auditor,
In the O/o the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram - 796001.
Phone No. - 9051518538.
8. Lhingneineng Singsit,
Aged about 41 years,
Son of Thanglenlal Singsit,
Presently serving as Clerk,
In the O/o Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram - 796001, Aizawl,
Phone: - 8575080600.
9. Shri Sparsh Srivastava,
Aged about 26 years,
Son of Anand Bihari Srivastava,
Presently serving as Auditor,
In the office of the DAG (Steel),
Ranchi, Jharkhand,
Pin- 834001,
O.A. No.286/2024 with
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
signed by
M.A. No. 117/2025
3
Phone no -7018161693.
10. Shri Shubham Yadav,
Aged about 25 years,
Son of Devendra Pratap,
Presently serving as Postal Assistant,
In the office of the Director, GPO,
New Delhi-110001.
Phone:- 8423331480.
11. Shri Shuvankar Sarkar,
Aged about 24 years,
Son of Dinabandhu Sarkar,
Presently serving as Auditor,
In the office of the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram - 796001, Aizwal,
Phone: - 8637530970.
12. Shri Suraj Kumar,
Aged about 25 years,
Son of Manoj Prasad,
Presently serving as Auditor,
In the Office of the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram 796001, Aizwal,
Phone: - 8757868481.
13. Shri Farman,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o - Ayub,
Presently serving as Assistant Audit Officer,
In the Office of the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram 796001, Aizawl,
Phone:- 8745814030.
14. Shri Sebabrata Mazumder,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of Anil BaranMazumder,
Presently serving as Deputy Accountant General,
In the Office of the Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram, Khatla 796001.
...Applicants
O.A. No.286/2024 with
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
signed by
M.A. No. 117/2025
4
By Advocates: Shri S. Choudhury and Smt. U. Dutta
- Versus -
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
To the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
North Block
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
9, Deen Dayal Upadhya Marg,
New Delhi-110124.
3. The Principal Accountant General,
Mizoram, Aizawl, Pin-796001.
4. Accountant General,
Mizoram-796001, Aizawl.
...Respondents
By Advocates: Shri A. Kundu, Addl. CGSC for Res. No. 1 and
Shri R.K. Talukdar for Res. Nos. 2, 3 & 4
Date of Hearing: 24.02.2026 Date of Order: 06.03.2026
ORDER
PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
Instant O.A. has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:
"8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of HRA @ 'B' class city rate with arrear monetary benefit from the date of actual posting of the individual applicants at Aizawl in the light of the judgment and order dated O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 5 19.09.2017 passed in OA No. 044/267/2017, judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 passed in O.A. No. 044/00425/2019 as well as judgment and order dated 20.01.2022 passed in OA No. 044/00007/2022 in the case of similarly situated employees in the office of the Principal Accountant General, Aizawl, Mizoram with immediate effect.
8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of arrear HRA @ 'B' class city rates for the period of 03.03.2022 till 28.03.2023 to the applicant No. 9 and for the period from 24.02.2022 till 08.08.2024 to applicant no. 10.
8.3. That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to consider the application submitted by the applicants for payment of HRA at the rate applicable to "B" class rates.
8.4 Costs of the application.
8.5 Any other relief (s) to which the applicant is entitled as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that all the applicants were appointed under the respondents at Aizawl on different dates and accordingly, posted in the same station till date. The issue involved in this O.A. pertains to grant of House Rent Allowance @ 'B' Class cities as has been granted to other similarly situated individuals. As per Smt. Dutta, similarly situated employees of the respondent department posted in Kohima, Nagaland came up for adjudication before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 230/2004 (Annexure-A/3) where this Tribunal vide order O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 6 dated 16.12.2005 directed the respondents to consider the question of applicability of the Clause 3 of O.M. dated 03.10.1997 by which the Central Govt. Employees working in the State of Nagaland were made entitled to draw the rates of the existing classification until further orders which is applicable to 'B' class cities. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court where the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 23.12.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 1035/2007 (Annexure-A/4) upheld the decision of this Tribunal. Against the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, an SLP (C) CC13260/2010 was preferred which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure-A/5).
3. Learned counsel further submitted that some similarly situated employees working under the same respondents had approached this Tribunal vide O.A. No. 044/00267/2017, O.A. No. 044/00425/2019 and OA No. 044/00007/2022 for payment of HRA @ "B" city, wherein this Tribunal vide Orders dated 19.09.2017, 20.12.2019 and 20.01.2022 had granted relief in favour of the applicants therein (Annexure-A/12 & A/13 respectively). Pursuant to O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 7 directions granted in the aforesaid orders, respondents had passed order on 13.09.2024 (Annexure-A/11) by granting revised HRA rate to the said applicants. But the same was denied to the present applicants only on the ground that they were not party in the aforesaid OAs.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants placed one Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 7550/2023 and submitted that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of similarly situated employees has upheld the order of this Tribunal dated 02.05.2023 passed in OA No. 231/2019. Same is taken on record.
5. Sri R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 submitted that HRA is being granted to Central Government employees on the basis of the population of the city/town wherein the place of duty falls. Special dispensation is also granted to some cities/towns irrespective of their population, vide which, as a special provision, employees posted in these cities are allowed to draw HRA at higher rates than the admissible one. Aizawl city was not mentioned in the O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 8 list of those cities with such special provision. Ministry of Finance vide OM dated 21.07.2015, reclassified cities/towns on the basis of Census Report 2011. Accordingly, all the cities in Mizoram remained as 'Z' class city for the purpose of HRA in 6th CPC. In 7th CPC, continuing the same methodology, all cities of Mizoram have been placed in 'Z' class city and are eligible for HRA @10% of the Basic Pay, which was issued vide OM dated 07.07.2025 upon implementation of 7 th CPC.
6. On query to the learned counsel for the respondents whether the present applicants are similarly situated with the applicants of the aforesaid O.As (supra), learned counsel for the respondents by referring para 18 of the reply submitted that the Head Quarter Office, New Delhi vide letters dated 09.09.2021 and 06.05.2022 referred the issue to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi relating to HRA @ "B/Y" class cities with regard to the employees of IA&AD posted in Aizawl for clarification. In response to the aforesaid communications, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure had agreed to implement the Orders passed by this Tribunal in respect of the employees, who were parties in O.A. No. 044/00267/2017, O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 9 O.A. No. 044/00425/2019 and O.A. No. 044/00007/2022 only. As per the learned counsel, since the present applicants were not parties in the aforesaid O.As, therefore, said benefits were not granted to them.
7. In reply to that, learned counsel for the applicants argued that in the event of passing of a judgment by competent Court of law laying down certain law, same is required to be made applicable to all similarly situated employees without any discrimination. That, similarly situated employees are getting their due rate of HRA pursuant to various judgments, which was passed taking into consideration the Apex Court judgment and on the other hand, present applicants are getting lesser rate of HRA, whereas both the sets of employees are guided by the same set of rules as same service conditions.
8. I have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before me and orders/judgments relied upon.
9. It is noted that similarly situated employees working under the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Government of O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 10 India, Kohima, Nagaland had approached before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 230 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 16.12.2005 by directing the respondents to ascertain the rate applicable to 'B' class cities as per the 4th Pay Commission report. Further ordered that if, on verification, it is found that the applicants were being paid at the rates applicable to 'B' Class cities as per the 4th Pay Commission report sanctioned by the Government, then, there shall be no question of any recovery. The Department challenged the order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by filing WP(C) No. 1035/2007 and the said WP(C) was ultimately dismissed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide order dated 23.12.2009 upholding the order of this Tribunal dated 16.12.2005. The Department thereafter, preferred an SLP being No. CC 13260/2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 01.09.2010 by giving finality to the order passed by this Tribunal on 16.12.2005 in O.A. No. 230 of 2004.
10. It is relevant to point out that though the Department in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2005 O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 11 passed in O.A. No. 230 of 2004, granted 'B' class cities to the applicants in O.A. No. 230 of 2004, but they did not extend the said benefit to the other similarly situated employees of the Government.
11. I have also perused the orders dated 19.09.2017, 20.12.2019 and 20.01.2022 passed by this Tribunal in case of similarly situated individuals i.e. O.A. No. 044/00267/2017, O.A. No. 044/00425/2019 and O.A. No. 044/00007/2022, which were implemented by the respondent department vide Order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-A/11) by granting revised HRA on the fact that they were party to the Court cases and denied the said benefits to the present applicants as they were not part of any OAs.
12. Since this Tribunal had laid down the principle regarding fixation of pay and parity, the respondents ought to have followed those principles while fixing the HRA at par with other similarly situated persons. Instead they forced the applicants to approach this Tribunal. This Tribunal also categorically observed that "if the applicants are found to be similarly situated, the benefit of aforesaid judgment be O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 12 extended by granting benefit of HRA @ 'B' class city i.e. 20% of the Basic Pay to the applicants with all consequential benefits."
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration that the matter where this Tribunal already passed order in O.A. Nos. 230/2004 which is upheld by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. Once a matter is finalized by virtue of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, no further interpretation is permissible to make the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court infructuous.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, respondents are hereby directed to verify the factual details and if the applicants are found to be similarly situated, the benefit of aforementioned judgments be extended to them by granting benefit of HRA @ 'B' class city/town with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. O.A. is disposed of.
O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025 13
16. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels for the respondents for onward transmission and to ensure compliance. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
18. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) MEMBER (A) PB O.A. No.286/2024 with PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by M.A. No. 117/2025