same as paid to the said employee at the last station of postingbefore he was postedto the StatesofAssam, Meghalaya,Nagaland,Manipur,Tripura etc. In other words, the letter grants a concessionand indulgenceto the employee as he is paid the HRA at the rate which was being paid at the place ofhis last posting. The amount so fixed dependsupon the basic pay being paid to the employee at the place of his last posting, before he was transferred and posted to the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, etc. This payment does not deny and the employee would get the HRA payableto him on his posting to the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura etc. The current HRA would accordinglydepend upon the basic pay being/drawnby him at the new place of posting. Iri this way, the employee does not suffer and continues to get HRA on his current basic-vpay while .being posted to the States of Assam, Meghalaya,Nagaland,",Mahip&^^Tripura etc. This is in terms of paragraph 1703 of the Indian RaHwayvEstablishmentCode.' By way of concession,the employee also continuesto draw the HRA, which he was gettingat the last place of postin'gas.perthe basic pay he was then drawing. The said concession is certainly not iniquitous and does not fall foul of Article 14. It also does not fail, foul of .paragraph 1703 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The said paragraph does not, in fact, permit payment of two HRAs, which became payable in terms of the Railway Board lettersdated 30"" June, 1984 and 4^*^ September,1986. 13. It is also difficult to perceive and accept the argument that payment of the second HRA on the basis of pay last drawn at the earlier place of posting is iniquitous or absurd. There is a rationale behind the said formula, which is perceptible and clear. The employee is paid additional HRA, equal to the fixed sum which he was already getting. This payment continues and is not stopped. The employee would be paid the HRA as
