Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Murari Lal Rustagi vs Union Of India Through on 4 October, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2080/2012 OA-3270/2012
with MA-2726/2012
OA-2097/2012 OA-3276/2012
MA-1728/2012 MA-2729/2012
OA-2567/2012 OA-3403/2012
TA-42/2012 MA-2838/2012
MA-2747/2012
OA-3020/2012 OA-3405/2012
MA-2525/2012 MA-2840/2012
OA-3105/2012 OA-3476/2012
MA-2608/2012 MA-2901/2012
OA-3106/2012 OA-3510/2012
MA-2609/2012 MA-2939/2012
OA-3154/2012 OA-3559/2012
OA-3162/2012 MA-2991/2012
MA-2647/2012 OA-3908/2012
OA-3180/2012 OA-1444/2013
MA-2657/2012 MA-1111/2013
OA-3181/2012 OA-1560/2013
MA-2651/2012 MA-1190/2013
OA-3243/2012 OA-1666/2013
MA-2691/2012 MA-1296/2013
OA-2935/2013
Reserved on : 20.09.2013.
Pronounced on :04.10.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
OA-2080/2012
Sh. Murari Lal Rustagi,
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad,
R/o Type-III/2, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai,
National Postal Academy,
Ghaziabad and
Other applicants as per
Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
2. Dy. Director General(Estt.),
Establishment Division,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
3. Director,
Rafi Ahmed Kidwai,
National Postal Academy,
Kamla Nehru Nagar,
Ghaziabad. . Respondents
(through Ms. Geeta Luthra and Sh. Amit Anand, Advocate)
OA-2097/2012, MA-1728/2012
1. Mrs. Sharda Vashistha,
W/o sh. D.d. Vashistha,
R/o Type-III/1, Rafi ahmed Kidwai,
National Postal Academy,
Ghaziabad and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
2. Dy. Director General(Estt.),
Establishment Division,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
3. Director,
Rafi Ahmed Kidwai,
National Postal Academy,
Kamla Nehru Nagar,
Ghaziabad. . Respondents
(through Ms. Geeta Luthra and Sh. Amit Anand, Advocate)
OA-2567/2012
Sh. M. Damodaran,
S/o Sh. S. Madhava Rao,
R/o 1985/III, NH-IV,Faridabad,
(Haryana). . Applicant
(through Sh. L.R. Khatana, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-1.
2. Department of Expenditure,
(through Secretary to the Govt. of India)
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi-1.
3. The Plant Protection Adviser,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Directorate of Plant Protection,
Quarantine & Storage, NH IV,
Faridabad (Haryana). . Respondents
(through Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Advocate)
TA-42/2012, MA-2747/2012
1. Sh. Sunil Tyagi,
S/o Sh. R.D. Tyagi,
R/o F-12, Sahyog Apartment,
Sector-9, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad and other
Applicants as per Memo of
Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Security, Printing & Minting
Corporation of India Ltd.,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, 16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar
Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi.
3. General Manager,
India Govt. Mint (Security Printing
& Minting Corpo. Of India Ltd.,)
D-2, Sector-1, Noida-201301. . Respondents
(through Sh. R.N. Singh, Advocate)
OA-3020/2012, MA-2525/2012
1. Sh. Mahesh Pal Singh,
S/o late Sh. Jaikaran Singh,
R/o H.No. K-4006/Sector-49,
Sainik Colony,
Faridabad-120001(Haryana)
and other applicants as per
Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Shrigopal Aggarwal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary,
M/o Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Union of India through
Secretary, Ministry of Statistics &
Programme Implementation,
Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. National Sample Survey Office (Field Operations
Division) through Deputy Director General,
N.S.S.O. (F.O.D.), Block-II,
Old CGO Complex, NH-4,
Faridabad(Haryana). . Respondents
(through Sh. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate)
OA-3105/2012, MA-2608/2012
1. Sh. S.C. Gupta,
S/o Sh. R.S. Gupta,
R/o 2233, Sector-16,
Faridabad and other
Applicants as per Memo of
Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. L.R. Khatana, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.-1.
2. The Agricultural Marketing Adviser
to the Government of India,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.-1. .. Respondents
(through Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Advocate)
OA-3106/2012, MA-2609/2012
1. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Employees Union Haryana,
Address H.No.19, ESIC Colony,
Sector-16, Faridabad,
Through its General Secretary,
Parmod Kumar Arora and other
applicants as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through the Director General,
Punchdeep Bhavan,
CIG Road, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Govt.of India, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents
(through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Advocate)
OA-3154/2012, MA-2643/2012
1. Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o C-1100, Nand Gram,
Gaziabad(UP) and other
applicants as per Memo of
Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of
Expenditure,
Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
3. Central of Scientific & Industrial Research
Through its Secretary,
Anusandhan Bhawan 2, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi-1. .Respondents
(through Sh. Praveen Swarup, Advocate)
OA-3162/2012, MA-2647/2012
1. Sh. Purnendu Kumar,
S/o Sh. Rambachn Sinha,
R/o 14/378, Vasundhra,
Ghaziabad and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the
Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
3. The Income Tax Commissioner,
Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,
Ghaziabad(UP). . Respondents
(through Sh. R.N. Singh, Advocate)
OA-3180/2012, MA-2657/2012
1. Sh. Ravi Dutt,
S/o sh. Jagan Singh,
R/o H.No.1120, Parvatiya Colony,
Part-II, Faridabad and other
applicants as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Shrigopal Aggarwal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Secretary,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Chief P.M.G.,
Haryana Circle,
Ambala Cant., Ambala.
4. Supdt., Post Office,
N.I.T., Faridabad-121001. .. Respondents
(through Sh. K.R. Sachdeva, Advocate)
OA-3181/2012, MA-2651/2012
1. Sh. R.A. Kaloria,
445, Type-II, NG-IV,
NIT, Faridabad and other
applicants as per Memo of
Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Shrigopal Aggarwal, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Secretary,
Ministry of Water Reserouces,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
N. Delhi.
3. Chairman,
Central Water Commission,
Sewa Bhavan, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Nasir Ahmed, Advocate)
OA-3243/2012, MA-2691/2012
1. Sh. Satish Kumar,
S/o Sh. Hiran Nand,
Post Office,
Sardar Bazar, Gurgaon and
Other applicants as per Memo
Of parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Madan Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Department of Post,
Ministry of Communication and IT,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
3. The Chief Post Master General,
Haryana Circle, 107, Mall Road,
Ambala Cantt. (Haryana). . Respondents
(through Sh. K.R. Sachdeva, Advocate)
OA-3270/2012, MA-2726/2012
1. Sh. Rajendra Prasad,
S/o sh. Narayan Singh,
R/o 1226, Type-3, NH-4,
NIT, Faridabad and other
applicants as per Memo of
parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Shrigopal Aggarwal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Secretary,
Ministry of Mines,
Shashtri Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
3. Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
J.L.N. Road, Kolkata.
4. Dy. Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
Aligang Sector-E,
Lucknow. .. Applicants
(through Sh. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate)
OA-3276/2012, MA-2729/2012
1. Sh. Kanchan Singh,
S/o Sh. Balram,
Presently posted at
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad and other
applicants as per Memo
of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Mohan Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. The Director of Printing
B Wing,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
4. Senior Pay & Accounts Officer(PTG),
Ministry or Urgan Development,
13/3 Jamnagar House,
New Delhi.
5. The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad, Haryana. .. Respondents
(through Ms. Ruby Sharma, Advocate)
OA-3403/2012, MA-2838/2012
1. Sh. Gulshan Kumar,
S/o late Sh. Chetan Dass,
R/o H.No. 1064-A, Sector-29,
Faridabad-120003.
(Haryana.) and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. .. Applicants
(through Sh. Shrigopal Aggarwal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Secretary,
M/o Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Union of India through
Secretary,
Ministry of U.D.&P.A.,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer(Elect.)DR,
CPWD, Vidhut Bhawan,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Krishna Kumar, Advocate)
OA-3405/2012, MA-2840/2012
1. Sh. Suresh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Fqir Chand,
R/o 3464, Gali No.7,
Block-A, SGM Nagar,
Faridabad and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Shrigopal Aggarwal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary,
M/o Finance, Dett. Of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Union of India through
Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer,
NDZ-IV, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Nasir Ahmed, Advocate)
OA-3476/2012, MA-2901/2012
1. Sh. S.K. Gaur,
S/o late Sh. R.K. Sharma,
R/o 23 E Kallupura Vasant Road,
Ghaziabad and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Govt. of India, (Department of AYUSH),
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Directorate of General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health, Govt. of India,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
4. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. T.C. Gupta and Sh. R.N. Singh, Advocate)
OA-3510/2012, MA-2939/2012
1. Smt. Rekha Devi,
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar,
R/o H.No. 295, Gali No.8,
New Karehra Colony,
Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad and
other applicants as per Memo of
parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt. of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Deptt. of Personnel & Training,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
4. The Chief of the Air Staff,
Air Head Quarter, Vayu Bhawan,
New Delhi.
5. The Director of Accounts,
Air Headquarter (VII),
Air Force Central Accounts Office,
Subroto Park, New Delhi-11.
6. The Air Officer Commanding in Chief
HQ Western Air Command,
Subroto Park, New Delhi-10.
7. The Air Officer Commanding,
Air Force Station Hindan,
Ghaziabad-201004. . Respondents
(through Sh. R.N. Singh, Advocate)
OA-3559/2012, MA-2991/2012
1. All India Union & employees of RMs,
Class-III, Ghaziabad through Secretary
Sh. Harpal Singh,S/o Sh. Gopi Chand,
R/o 2/12, P&T Colony,
Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Chief Post Master General,
UP circle, Department of Posts,
Lucknow-226001.
4. Director of Accounts (Postal),
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Lucknow-226001.
5. Superintendent (RMS),
SH Division,
Saharanpur-247001. . Respondents
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj for Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj, Advocate)
OA-3908/2012
1. Dr. Manju Attrey,
Chief Medical Officer,
W/o Dr. Raman Attrey,
CGHS Dispensary,
Gurgaon and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Madan Lal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary, Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
(CGHS Wing) Govt. of India,
New Delhi.
3. The Additional Director,
CGHS (South Zone)
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
4. The Additional Director (HQ),
CGHS Wing, Bikaner House,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Subhash Gosai, Advocate)
OA-1444/2013, MA-1111/2013
1. Sh. Bhupal Singh Bisht,
S/o. Sh. Keshav Singh Bisht,
R/o. H. No. 1041, Sector-9,
Faridabad (Haryana) and other
Applicants as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Shrigopal Aggarwal
Versus
1. Secretary,
M/o Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Union of India through
Secretary,
Ministry of U.D & P.A.,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer, NDZ-VIII,
CPWD, Vidhyut bhawan,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. Krishna Kumar, Advocate)
OA-1560/2013, MA-1190/2013
1. Sh. Pramod Kumar,
S/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
R/o WZ-283/54,
Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi-18 and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Kiran Singh, Advocate)
Versus
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
New Delhi.
2. Controller of Defence Accounts(ARMY),
Meerut Cantt., Meerut, UP. . Respondents
(through Sh. Amit Anand and Sh. R.N. Singh, Advocate)
OA-1666/2013, MA-1296/2013
1. Sh. Anil Chopra,
S/o Sh. P.N. Chopra,
R/o D-52, Amar Colony,
Lajpat Nagar-IV,
New Delhi-24 and other applicants
as per Memo of Parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Good and PD,
Govt. of India, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of
Expenditure, Govt. of India,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Deptt. of Personnel & Training,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
4. The Sr. Accounts Officer,
Pay & Accounts Office,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and PD,
12-A, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-11.
5. The Director,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
National Test House, Northern Region,
Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad(UP). . Respondents
(through Sh. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate)
OA-2935/2013
1. Sh. Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Surendra Kumar,
R/o ALTTC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad and
other applicants as per Memo of
parties. . Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Govt. of India, Sanchar Bhawan,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. The Asstt. Director General(IA),
Department of Telecommunications,
(Internal Audit Unit), Ministry of Communication
& IT, Govt. of India, Sanchar Bhawan,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
3. The Director General,
National Institute of Communications Finance,
Ministry of Communication & IT, Govt. of India,
Deptt. of Telecommunications,
ALT Complex, Ghaziabad(UP).
4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi... Respondents
(through Sh. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) In all these OAs the issue involved is common, hence they are being disposed of by this common order. Miscellaneous Applications moved in these OAs for joining together are also allowed. For the sake of convenience, facts of OA-3105/2012 are being discussed.
2. The issue involved in these OAs is payment of Transport Allowance (TA) to those Central Government employees who are posted at satellite towns of Delhi such as Noida, Faridabad, Ghaziabad and Gurgaon. All the applicants are those whose offices are located in these satellite towns. Their contention is that they are entitled for payment of TA at Delhi rates.
3. Facts of the case are that TA to Central Government employees was first introduced in pursuance of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The Central Government vide O.M. No. 21(1)(97)E II B dated 03.10.1997 decided to pay TA to its employees to compensate them for the cost of transport incurred by them in traveling from their residences to their places of duty. The rates at which TA was to be paid were as follows:-
Category/Pay Scale of the Employees Rate of Transport Allowance Rs. Per month____________ A-1/A Other Class city places 1. Rs.8000-13500 or above 800 400
2. Rs.6500-6900 or above but below the scale of Rs.8000-13500 400 200
3. Below Rs.6500-6900 and casual employees granted temporary status 100 75 In the O.M. dated 03.10.1997 it was mentioned that the cities referred to as A and A-1 in these orders shall be the same as those classified as such for the purpose of compensatory city allowance in terms of the orders issued separately regulating grant of CCA.
3.1 As far as CCA and HRA were concerned the classification was done on the basis of O.M. dated 14.05.1993 which was based on the 1991 census. Para-3 of the aforesaid O.M. reads as follows:-
The orders issued by this Ministry as listed at Sl.Nos.(1) to (5) below, relating to grant of HRA/CCA to Central Government employees posted within the municipal area of a city/town at rates admissible in another classified city/town on the basis of the principle of contiguity contained in Para.3 (a)(i) of this Ministrys O.M. No.2 (37)-E.II(B)/64, dated 27-11-1965, shall continue to be applicable.
1. O.M. No. 2(4)-E.II(B)/65, HRA/CCA at Delhi rates dated 5-11-1974. in Faridabad Complex.
2. O.M. No. 11023/9/E.II(B)/78, HRA/CCA at Delhi rates dated 26-5-1979. in Ghaziabad Municipal area.
3. O.M. No. 21011/20/89-E.II(B) Vol.II, HRA/CCA at Delhi rates dated 31-1-1990. in Noida.
4. O.M. No.11013/2/81-E.II(B), HRA at Mumbai rates in dated 3-8-1982. New Bombay.
5. O.M. No. 11013/1/87-E.II(B), HRA/CCA at Jallandhar dated 12-10-1987. rates in Jallandhar Cantonment.
The orders, listed at Sl.Nos. (6) to (13) below, issued by this Ministry relating to HRA/CCA to Central Government employees posted in cities/towns/hill stations covered under these order, where HRA/CCA has been granted not on the basis of classification of these cities/towns as per the population criterion but on special reasons, shall also continue to be applicable until further orders.
O.M. No. 11023/1/86-E.II(B) HRA/CCA at Delhi rates dated 9-12-1986. in Gurgaon.
*** O.M.No. 11018/2/83-E.II(B) HRA at C class rates in dated 14-11-1986. Mahe.
(9) O.M. No.2(13)-E.II(B)/74- HRA at C class rates in Vol.II, dated 16-4-1992. Goa and Union Territory of Daman and Diu.
(10)*** *(11) O.M.No.2(54)-E.II(B)/73 CCA in cities mentioned dated 29-8-1979 in these orders on the basis of constliness.
and *** (12) O.M.No.11014/1/E.II(B)/84 HRA at A,B-I, andB-2 dated 5-2-1990. class rates in Shillong.
(13) O.M.No.11021/1/77-E.II(B), HRA at C class rates in dated 6-4-1978. hill stations.
*Cities which are granted CCA at B-2 rates ad per O.M. dated 29-8-1979 (Sl.No.11 above).
Ajmer 4. Goa Alwaye 5. Rourkela Durgapur 3.2 In 2002 the Ministry of Finance issued O.M. No. 21(1)/97-E.II(B) dated 22.02.2002 by which certain clarifications were issued to various Ministries regarding payment of TA. In the said O.M. in Clarification No.9 the Ministry of Finance has stated as follows:-
Points/Doubts raised Clarification The rate at which Transport Allowance is to be paid in the case of city where classification has been downgraded needs to be clarified. Grant of Transport Allowance would be governed by the new classification of cities for the purpose of CCA as given in Annexure-I to O.M. N.2(30)/97-E.II(B), dated 3-10-1997. The special dispensation extended to HRA/CCA is not applicable to Transport Allowance.
3.3 Government of India issued O.M. No. 2(21)/E.II(B)/2004 dated 18.11.2004 reclassifying the cities and towns on the basis of 2001 census for the purpose of CCA. In the aforesaid O.M. it was mentioned that cities were being reclassified as A-1, A, B-1, B-2 and C for the purpose of HRA in the Annexure-II to these orders. Further, it was mentioned that special orders relating to grant of HRA/CCA as listed in Para-3 of this Ministrys O.M. No. 2(2)/E.II(B)/93 dated 14.05.1993 shall continue to be applicable. This according to the applicant meant that the special dispensation given to satellite towns vide various OMs enumerated in para-3 of O.M. dated 14.05.1993 continued to be applicable for the purpose of TA also.
3.4 When audit objections regarding payment of excess amount as TA were raised, some Ministries had passed orders on different dates withdrawing the facility of special dispensation given to satellite towns as far as payment of TA was concerned. Aggrieved by these orders, various OAs were filed before this Tribunal. They were OA-1270/2005 decided on 18.11.2005, OA-483/2005 along with OA-1292/2005 decided on 16.09.2005 and OA-2363/2005 decided on 03.01.2006. All these OAs were heard by Single Bench of this Tribunal and allowed in favour of the applicants. The operative part of the order in OA-2363/2005 reads as follows:-
8. Since the issue raised in the present OA, namely the entitlement of transport allowance is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, I am bound by the said decision and order and following the same, allow the present OA. Accordingly, OM dated 05.10.2005 vide which the applicants were denied the transport allowance and a direction had been issued for recovery of alleged excess amount paid, is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. I hold that the applicants would be entitled to govern by the Ministry of Finace OM dated 14.5.1993 read with latest OM dated 18.11.2004 on the subject of CCA/HRA and the plea of the respondents that Ministry of Finance OM dated 22.2.2002 would be applicable and the special dispensation relating to grant of CCA/HRA under OM dated 14.5.1993 would not be applicable, as projected by the respondents, is over-ruled. It was held that the applicants would be entitled to be governed by Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 14.05.1993 read with O.M. dated 18.11.2004 on the subject of CCA/HRA and the plea of the respondents that Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 22.02.2002 would be applicable and the special dispensation relating to grant of CCA/HRA under O.M. dated 14.05.1993 would not be applicable,was over-ruled. It appears that after these orders of the Tribunal the applicants who were Central Government employees in different Ministries in the satellite towns continued to draw TA at Delhi rates.
3.5 On 29.08.2008, pursuant to the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, the Ministry of Finance issued O.M. No.2(13)/2008-E-II(B) and O.M. No. 21(2)/2008-E-II(B) whereby orders have been issued relating to grant of HRA, CCA and TA. The O.M. No.21(2)/2008-E-II(B) dated 29.08.2008 dealing with TA states that the Central Government employees shall be entitled to TA at the following rates:-
Subject: Grant of Transport Allowance to Central Government employees.
The undersigned is directed to say that consequent upon the decisions taken by the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the President is pleased to decide that in modification of this Ministrys O.M. No. 21(1)/97-EII(B) dated 3.10.1997, the Central Government employees shall be entitled to Transport Allowance at the following rates:-
Employees drawing grade pay of Rate of Transport Allowance per month In 13 cities classified as A-I/A earlier.
Grade pay of Rs.5400 & above. Rs.3200+DA thereon Rs.1600+DA thereon
(i) Grade pay of Rs.4200, Rs.4600 and Rs.4800
(ii) those drawing grade pay below Rs.4200 but drawing pay in the pay band equal to Rs.7440 & above. Rs.1600+DA thereon Rs.800+DA thereon Grade pay below 4200 and pay in the pay band below Rs.7440. Rs.600+D thereon Rs.400+DA thereon #Hyderabad(UA), Delhi(UA),Bangalore(UA), Greater Mumbai(UA) Chennai (UA), Kolkata (UA), Ahmedabad (UA) Surat (UA), Nagpur (UA), Pune (UA) Jaipur (UA) Lucknow (UA) and Kanpur (UA).
2. The grant of transport allowance shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The blind or orthopaedically handicapped employees in terms of this Ministrys orders vide OM No.21(I)/97-E-II(B) dated 3.10.1997 shall continue to draw this allowance at double the normal rates, which shall, in no case, be less than Rs.1,000/- per month plus the applicable rate of dearness allowance. The other conditions of O.M. No. 19029/1/78-E-IV(B) dated 31.8.78, related to grant of conveyance allowance to blind and orthopaedically handicapped Central Government employees shall remain unchanged.
(ii) The allowance shall not be admissible to those employees who have been provided with the facility of Government transport.
(iii) The condition contained in para 3(ii) of O.M.No. 21(1)/97 E-II(B) dated 3.10.1997 by which the grant of Transport Allowance to employees provided with official accommodation within one kilometer of office or within a campus housing the place of work and residence was disallowed, has been withdrawn.
(iv) In respect of those employees who opt to retain their pre-revised scales of pay, the corresponding Grade Pay of the pay scale/corresponding pay scale of the post occupied on 1.1.2006 as indicated in CCS(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 would determine the allowance under these orders.
(v) These orders will apply to all civilian employees of the Central Government. The orders will also apply to the civilian employees paid from the Defence Service Estimates. In regard to Armed Forces Personnel and Railway employees, separate orders will be issued by the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Railways, respectively.
3. Officers drawing grade pay of Rs.10,000 & Rs.12000 and those in the HAG_Scale, who are entitled to the use of official car in terms of O.M.No.20(5)-E-II(A)/93 dated 28.1.94 shall be given the option to avail themselves of the existing facility or to draw the Transport Allowance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- p.m. plus dearness allowance thereon.
4. In so far as the persons serving in the Indian Audit & Accounts Department are concerned, this order issues in consultation with the Comptroller & Auditor General of India.
5. The order shall take effect from September 1,2008. 3.6 However, the employees of satellite town continued to draw TA at Delhi rates. Audit objections were raised in certain Ministries regarding payment of excess TA to these employees. They approached this Tribunal by filing OA-805/2011, which was disposed of at the admission stage itself in terms of the following directions given on 03.11.2011 in Para-8 of the judgment:-
In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to re-examine the claim of the applicants for TA at the rate claimed by them i.e. as admissible to employees posted in 13 other cities classified as A-1/A. Respondents would take their decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to applicants by way of speaking order. 3.7 It appears that following these orders of the Tribunal the Ministry of Labour approached the Ministry of Finance for clarification on this subject.
3.8 Ministry of Finance vide their ID Note No. 21(8)/2010-E.(II)B dated 06.01.2012 advised the Ministry of Labour that Central Government employees posted at Noida, Faridabad were entitled to TA at the rates applicable to other places i.e. other than 13 classified cities and that payment made at Delhi rates by the offices at Faridabad under different Ministries is not in order. The Ministries were also directed to take remedial action. Subsequently, on further clarification sought by the same Ministry, the Ministry of Finance issued O.M. No. 21(8)/2010-E-II(B) dated 01.08.2012 addressed to all Financial Advisors of all Ministries/Departments of Government of India in which they reiterated that employees posted at Faridabad, Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurgaon were entitled to TA at rates applicable to other places i.e. and not at rates applicable to 13 classified cities as per conditions laid down in the Ministrys O.M. dated 29.08.2008. Following these directions from the Ministry of Finance different Ministries have passed orders withdrawing the facility of TA at enhanced rates from the employees posted at satellite towns on different dates. Aggrieved by these orders, the employees have filed these OAs before us impugning the various orders of their Ministries by which TA being paid to them was reduced and recovery of excess amount ordered.
4. Arguing for the applicants learned counsel Sh. L.R. Khatana stated that the issue has been settled by the decision of this Tribunal in OA-2363/2005 dated 03.01.2006 in the matter of L.K. Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. in which it was held that employees at Faridabad were entitled TA at Delhi rates. He stated that the O.M. dated 29.08.2008 of Ministry of Finance has purportedly been issued in compliance of the recommendations of Sixth CPC. However, perusal of the Pay Commission recommendations would reveal that while they have recommended that CCA be merged with TA they have not made any recommendation regarding reducing TA of satellite towns. He stated that if the contention of the respondents is accepted then it would lead to certain absurd results inasmuch as persons residing at Faridabad but attending offices in Delhi shall be entitled to higher rate of TA as compared to those employees who are residing in Delhi but attending offices in Faridabad despite the fact that the distances traveled and transportation cost incurred by both would be same. On this basis, he stated that the orders of the respondents were discriminatory, irrational and unsustainable in law. He invited our attention to observations of Apex Court in the case of B. Manmad Reddy Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy, (2010) 3 SCC 314 in which the following has been held:-
18. That leaves us with the question whether any imbalance among those eligible for appointment against class II category 1 posts coming from different sources and categories would itself justify a classification like the one made in Note 6. Our answer is in the negative. There is no gainsaying that classification must rest on a reasonable and intelligible basis and the same must bear a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. By its very nature classification can and is often fraught with the danger of resulting in artificial inequalities which make it necessary to subject the power to classify to restraints lest the guarantee of equality becomes illusory on account of classifications being fanciful instead of fair, intelligible or reasonable. (emphasis added)
19. We may gainfully extract the note of caution sounded by Krishna Iyer J. in his Lordship's separate but concurring judgment in Triloki Nath's case : (SCC pp.41-42, PARA 56) ........The dilemma of democracy is as to how to avoid validating the abolition of the difference between the good and the bad in the name of equality and putting to sleep the constitutional command for expanding the areas of equal treatment for the weaker ones with the dope of special qualifications measured by expensive and exotic degrees. These are perhaps meta-judicial matters left to the other branches of Government, but the Court must hold the Executive within the leading strings of egalitarian constitutionalism and correct, by judicial review, episodes of subtle and shady classification grossly violative of equal justice. That is the heart of the matter. That is the note that rings through the first three fundamental rights the people have given to themselves. (Emphasis added)
4.1 Shri Khatana, learned counsel further stated that the impugned decision of the respondents runs contrary to the concept of National Capital Region (NCR) which has been propounded and propagated by the Government of India with so much of fanfare. He stated that to decongest Delhi the Government of India was encouraging offices and employees to shift to neighboring towns. The decision of the respondents on TA will be a set back to this policy In this regard, he drew our attention to the observations of Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437 which reads as follows:-
14. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.
15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammeled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the filed of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labeled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reasons is per se arbitrary. 4.2 Sh. Khatana argued that the decision of the respondents suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and can only be termed as arbitrary. He relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of East Coast Railway Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678 in which the following has been held:-
23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.
24-29.
30. We may hasten to add that while application of mind to the material available to the competent authority is an essential pre-requisite for the making of a valid order, that requirement should not be confused with the sufficiency of such material to support any such order. Whether or not the material placed before the competent authority was in the instant case sufficient to justify the decision taken by it, is not in issue before us.That aspect may have assumed importance only if the competent authority was shown to have applied its mind to whatever material was available to it before cancelling the examination. Since application of mind as a thresh-hold requirement for a valid order is conspicuous by its absence the question whether the decision was reasonable having regard to the material before the authority is rendered academic. Sufficiency or otherwise of the material and so also its admissibility to support a decision the validity whereof is being judicially reviewed may even otherwise depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be formulated in that regard nor do we propose to do so in this case. 4.3 Learned counsel Sh. S.K. Gupta arguing for the applicants first gave brief history of the case. He submitted that there are a large number of employees residing in satellite towns attending offices in Delhi and likewise there are many employees residing in Delhi and attending offices in the satellite towns. There cannot be any change or difference in payment of TA to these employees. O.M. No. 21(8)/2010-E.II(B) dated 01.08.2012 of the Ministry of Finance talks of irregularity but the office of the respondents failed to point out any irregularity whatsoever during the course of arguments. The respondents have relied on Clarification No. 9 issued vide O.M. dated 2002 but the same has already been set aside by the respondents in earlier decisions referred to above.
4.4 Learned counsel Sh. Madan Lal arguing for the applicants stated that although CCA has been abolished yet this does not ipso facto abolish classification for the purpose of TA from 01.04.2004 till date as per O.M. dated 18.11.2004. He also stated that the orders of the Ministry of Finance are not based on any recommendations of Sixth CPC as is obvious from a reading of the Pay Commissions recommendations.
4.5 Learned counsel Sh. Shrigopal Aggarwal arguing for applicants has stated that the respondents did not issue any show cause notice before reducing the TA and ordering recovery of excess amount thereby violating principles of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in catena of judgments. He reiterated that it would be highly discriminatory not to pay the same TA to those employees who are attending offices in Delhi but residing in satellite towns as compared to those employees who were residing in Delhi and attending offices in satellite towns. In this regard he relied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of MCD Vs. Workman (Mates) & Another, SCT 2003(4) SCT 805 in which it was held that Where all relevant considerations are same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments.
5. Various Administrative Ministries have filed their counter disputing the claims of the applicants. Ministry of Finance though represented before us through learned Senior Counsel Ms. Geeta Luthra and Sh. K.R. Sachdeva have chosen not to file their own counter despite the fact that they were nodal Ministry for the purpose of TA and all the other Ministries were only following their directions in this regard. In their counter replies the Administrative Ministries have by and large stated that the special dispensation to satellite towns granted through O.M. dated 14.05.1993 was only for the purpose of HRA & CCA and not for the purpose of TA. They have stated that this decision was clarified by Ministry of Finance vide their O.M. dated 22.02.2002 in which clarifications regarding TA were given and in clarification No.9 it was clearly mentioned that special dispensation extended to HRA/CCA is not applicable to TA. Further when recommendations of Sixth CPC were implemented O.M. dated 29.08.2008 was issued regarding TA. In the said O.A. it is clearly mentioned that only 13 cities were classified as A-1/A and that they did not include the satellite towns. Thus TA in these cities was payable at the rate granted to other places. On the basis of the above, it was stated that applicants were not entitled to TA at Delhi rates and therefore action of the respondents in reducing the TA and ordering recovery of excess amount was in order. The respondents also cited a plethora of judgments in their support, some of which are as follows:-
(i) UOI & Ors. Vs. Hiranmoy Sen & Ors., JT 2007(12) SC 503.
(ii) S.C. Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC (LS) 897.
(iiii) UOI & Ors. Vs. Pradip Kumar Dey,(2000) 8 SCC 580.
(iv) State of UP & Ors. Vs. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade-II Association, (2003) 6 SCC 250.
(v) Supreme Court Fourth Class Employees Welfare Association Vs. UOI & Anr., (1989) 4 SCC 187.
(vi) State of W.B. and Ors. Vs. Hari Narayan Bhowal and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 78.
5.1 On the basis of all these cases, the respondents argued that determination of pay and allowances is the job of Expert Bodies like the Pay Commission and is best left to them. Decisions taken by the Government on the basis of recommendations of these Expert Bodies are not amenable to judicial review and Courts should refrain from interfering in the same.
6. We have heard counsel for both sides and have perused the material on record. We wanted to enquire whether the issue regarding payment of TA in satellite downs has been considered by the Ministry of Finance in a holistic manner at appropriate level. In response to our query a compilation containing recommendations of Sixth CPC, Cabinet Note and Government of India approval of the same and a copy of Resolution on TA besides certain other documents has been furnished to us. On the strength of these documents, learned counsel for respondents tried to establish that the recommendations of Sixth CPC were taken to Cabinet for approval. After approval of the Cabinet the Resolution and Notification containing the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 were approved by the Honble Finance Minister. Thus, according to her this matter has received consideration at the highest level.
6.1 We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel of both sides. In our opinion, Ministry of Finance is to be blamed for the confusion that has been created regarding this issue. First of all TA was introduced vide their O.M. dated 03.10.1997 in which it was clearly stated that the classification of cities adopted for the purpose of TA would be the same as the one done for the purpose of payment of CCA. As far as CCA and HRA were concerned their classification was done on the basis of O.M. dated 14.04.1993, in Para-3 of which special dispensation was available to satellite towns. Thus, it was reasonable to presume that the same special dispensation was extendable for the purpose of TA also since the O.M. dated 03.10.1997 clearly mentioned that for TA classification done for CCA would be adopted. As a result, offices of many Ministries located in satellite towns started paying TA to the Ministries at Delhi rates. This confusion must have come to the notice of the Ministry of Finance since in their O.M. dated 20.02.2002 they clarified that the special dispensation to satellite towns available for HRA/CCA was not extendable to TA. This O.M. was challenged in several OAs filed before this Tribunal and all of them were decided in favour of the applicants. In OA-2363/2005 decided on 03.01.2006 in which it was held that the contention of the Ministry of Finance that their clarification issued vide O.M. dated 20.02.2002 would be valid for the purpose of TA was not accepted and it was directed that the special dispensation given through O.M. dated 14.05.1993 for CCA/HRA would also be applicable for TA. However, despite such orders in several OAs no action was taken by the Ministry of Finance either to challenge these orders in appropriate judicial proceedings or to implement the directions given in the orders. While it is true that in some of these OAs Ministry of Finance were not directly parties, yet it is difficult to believe that the Administrative Ministries would not have consulted them before filing their counter or before implementing the directions of the Tribunal. Even then no action was taken by the Ministry of Finance and the employees continued to enjoy the facility of TA at Delhi rates under the Court orders.
6.2 Thereafter, the Sixth COC recommendations became available to the Ministry of Finance. We have gone through the recommendations and we find that the issue of special dispensation to satellite towns as regards payment of TA is concerned was never considered by them at all. As such, they did not make any recommendations in this case. While they recommended abolition of CCA and enhancement of the rates of TA they did not say anything about the satellite towns.
6.3 We have perused the material placed before the Cabinet while considering the recommendations of Sixth CPC and also the material placed before the Honble Finance Minister for approving the draft Resolution and CCS(RP) Rules after the Cabinet had approved the recommendations of Sixth CPC. In none of these, there is any mention of rates at which TA should be paid in satellite towns.
6.4 When some employees had approached this Tribunal by filing OA-805/2011 directions had been given vide order dated 03.11.2011 to re-examine the issue of TA and communicate the decision by means of a speaking order. It is in response thereto that Ministry of Finance have issued their O.M. dated 01.08.2012 by which they have stated that employees posted at Faridabad, Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurgaon were entitled to TA at rates applicable to other places and not at rates applicable to 13 cities classified as A/A-1. On perusing the material placed before us, we feel that issuance of this O.M. cannot be termed as a compliance of this Tribunals order dated 03.11.2011. This is because the issue has never been re-examined by the Ministry of Finance in totality. From the extract of the notings in the files made available to us it appears that since the O.M. dated 29.08.2008 classified the cities into two categories, namely, A/A-1 and other places and since only 13 cities were classified as A/A-1, the implication drawn was that satellite towns would fall under the category of other places. This inference was drawn without placing the matter either before the Cabinet or Honble Finance Minister or even at the level of Secretary. In our opinion, even this inference could not have been drawn since before issue of this O.M. no consideration was given regarding special dispensation for payment of TA in satellite towns. Only once had Ministry of Finance issued any instructions on this subject and that was through O.M. dated 22.02.2002 vide clarification No. 9. Even this had been considered in various OAs filed before this Tribunal earlier and it was found that the employees would continue to be governed by special dispensation given through O.M. dated 14.05.1993.
6.5 In this case interest of thousands of employees was involved and the controversy has been going on for some time resulting in lot of confusion and various Court cases. The Ministry of Finance should have examined this issue holistically and issued comprehensive instructions on the subject. However, even after Court orders in the year 2005-2006 they chose to keep silent. Moreover, while issuing orders regarding TA in pursuance of Sixth CPC recommendations they did not examine this issue at all. Even when directions were given in OA-805/2011 to re-examine the issue particularly the fact that different Ministries were giving TA at different rates to their employees the Ministry of Finance only chose to issue O.M. dated 01.08.2012 without considering the matter holistically and at appropriate level. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for Ministry of Finance Ms. Geeta Luthra had fairly submitted that the Ministry of Finance were prepared to reconsider the issue holistically and place the matter before the Honble Finance Minister for decision.
6.6 Under these circumstances, we quash the O.M. dated 01.08.2012 and direct the respondent-Ministry of Finance to re-examine the whole issue holistically taking into consideration its history starting from the issue of O.M. dated 03.10.1997, the various directions given by this Tribunal from time to time and the arguments advanced by the applicants in all these OAs mentioned in earlier part of this judgment for grant of special dispensation to satellite towns. This consideration will be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the decision taken will be communicated to the Ministries by means of a reasoned order. We also direct that till such consideration is made and orders issued by the Ministry of Finance, the employees will continue to draw the TA at the rates at which they have been drawing the same so far and no recovery will be made from them till then. Needless to say that if the applicants are aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents, they will be at liberty, if they so desire, to challenge the same by means of appropriate judicial proceedings. Accordingly, all these OAs are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
7. A copy of this order be placed in each of the case files.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/