Delhi High Court
E.S.I.C. & Ors vs Joint Action Council Speciality And ... on 24 July, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~9 to 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.07.2025
(9)+ W.P.(C) 2600/2006 & CM APPL. 14166/2008
E.S.I.C. & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sahay, Ms.Shagun
Sapra, Mr.Archit Rajput and
Mr.Karandeep Singh, Advs.
versus
JOINT ACTION COUNCIL SPECIALITY AND DOCTORS
.....Respondent
Through:
(10)+ W.P.(C) 1103/2008 & CM APPL. 2158/2008
UOI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Mr.Mukesh
Kumar Tiwari and Ms.Reba
Jena Mishra, Advs.
Mr.Mukul Singh, CGSC with
Ms.Ira Singh and Mr.Aryan
Dhaka, Advs.
versus
J.P.VERMA &ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
(11)+ W.P.(C) 9402/2009 & CM APPL. 7238/2009, CM APPL.
32421/2025
UOI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Mukul Singh, CGSC with
Ms.Ira Singh and Mr.Aryan
Dhaka, Advs.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2600/2006 and connected matters Page 1 of 6
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:28.07.2025
20:03:37
20:26:27
SECRY. COORDINATION COMMITTEE OF CENTRAL
EXCISE ASSOCIATION & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Jasvinder Kaur, Mr.Shivam
Yadav, Mr.Altamash Khan and
Mr.Shivalik Malik, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging
the Order dated 16.09.2005 (W.P.(C) 2600/2006); Order dated
18.11.2005 (W.P.(C) 1103/2008), and; the Order dated 02.08.2006
(W.P.(C) 9402/2009) passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as,
'Tribunal'), allowing the O.A.s filed by the respondents herein,
holding that the respondents are entitled to the Transport Allowance at
the rate of Rs.800/- per month, which was applicable to cities
classified as Class 'A' in terms of the Office Memorandum dated
03.10.1997, and further restraining the petitioners from making any
recovery of the alleged excess amount paid to the respondents as
Transport Allowance.
2. As the three petitions raise a common question of law, they are
being disposed of by this common Judgment.
3. The Government of India, by an O.M. dated 14.05.1993, issued
a Special Dispensation Order, equating the city of Ghaziabad
Municipal Area for purposes of House Rent Allowance (in short,
'HRA') and City Compensatory Allowance (in short, 'CCA') to
Delhi. This dispensation was continued by the Office Memorandum
dated 18.11.2004.
4. In the interregnum, however, by an Office Memorandum dated
03.10.1997, the rates of Transport Allowance with effect from
01.08.1997 were announced as under:
"Rates of Transport Allowance w.e.f. 1.8.1997
Category/Pay Scale of the Employee Rate of Transport Allowance Rs. per
month
____
"A-1"/"A" Other
Class City Places
the scale of Rs. 8000 - 13500
3. Below Rs. 6500 - 6900 and Casual
"
5. In the said OM, while Delhi was placed in Category 'A' and
'A-1' Cities, in Annexure-1 thereto, for the purposes of CCA,
Ghaziabad was placed in Category 'B-2', and for HRA, it was placed
in Category 'C'.
6. Thereafter, the applicability of these new classifications was
clarified vide the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2002, which
specifically stated that the special dispensation allowed in case of
HRA/CCA with respect to classification of Cities is not applicable to
the Transport Allowance. We quote the same as under:
"...The special dispensation extended to
HRA/CCA is not applicable to the transport
allowance"
7. Subsequently, an Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2005 was
issued, which directed the respondents to effectuate recoveries of the
excess amounts erroneously paid for Transport Allowance.
8. By Notices dated 07.01.2005 and others, the petitioners sought
to make recoveries of the excess amount paid as Transport Allowance
to the respondents by treating Ghaziabad to continue to be Class 'A'
City for purposes of Transport Allowance due to the special
dispensation that was applicable only to the HRA/CCA. These
recovery notices were challenged by the respondents before the
learned Tribunal.
9. The learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Orders, has allowed the
O.A.s filed by the respondents, stating that the special dispensation for
purposes of HRA/CCA shall entitle the respondents and shall extend
the said benefit even for Transport Allowance.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the above is
in clear contradiction to the O.M. dated 03.10.1997 and specifically in
terms of the clarification thereof provided in the OM dated
22.02.2002.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that once the HRA/CCA benefit of Delhi is extended to
Ghaziabad, there is no reason why Transport Allowance should also
not be paid at the same rate as applicable to Delhi.
12. She submits that Ghaziabad being a city contiguous to Delhi, it
is also reasonable that the same Transport Allowance should be
extended to the respondents at the rates applicable to Delhi.
13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
14. From a reading of the O.Ms dated 14.05.1993 and 18.11.2004,
it would be apparent that though Ghaziabad was not a Class 'A' City,
for the purposes of HRA and CCA, as a special dispensation, it was
extended the same rates as applicable to Delhi.
15. The Government, in its wisdom, however, by the O.M. dated
03.10.1997, as also clarified by the OM dated 22.02.2002, did not
extend the said special dispensation to Ghaziabad as far as the
Transport Allowance is concerned. In fact, the clarification provided
in the OM dated 22.02.2002 which we have re-produced hereinabove,
specifically states that the special dispensation for HRA/CCA shall
not extend to the Transport Allowance. There was no challenge to the
O.M. dated 03.10.1997 or the O.M. dated 22.02.2022 in the O.A.s
filed by the respondents.
16. In any case, this is a matter of fiscal policy of the Government
with which Courts refrain to interfere with.
17. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, clearly erred in extending
the benefit of the special dispensation to the Transport Allowance
payable for Ghaziabad as well to the respondents, which is in clear
contradiction to the specific condition stipulated in the O.M. dated
03.10.1997 and as clarified in the OM dated 22.02.2002.
18. The Impugned Orders, therefore, cannot be sustained and are,
accordingly, set aside.
19. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the respondents are at the verge of retirement and any recovery
made at this stage would place them in pecuniary distress.
20. We would not like to comment on this as all the facts regarding
the payments made are not before us. We, therefore, leave it open to
the respondents to make representations in this regard to the
petitioners. The petitioners shall consider such representation, if made,
in accordance with law.
21. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
JULY 24, 2025/sg/bs/ik
