Si Exe Anil Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~113
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 7 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010484432026
+ W.P.(C) 14868/2026
SI EXE ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aarti Singh, Mr. Amit Kumar
Sharma, Mr. Jaivardhan, Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Ms.
Ayushi Srivastav and Mr. Ajinkya Dhalwade,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC with Ms.
Pragya Bharti, GP, Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
along with Asstt. Commandant J.P. Singh and
Insp. Yashpal, CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 69635/2026
1. This application is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 151
CPC seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Synopsis and list of dates are taken on record.
3. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14868/2026
4. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the Respondents to grant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 1 of 9


full House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the Petitioner for the period
07.06.2022 to 28.02.2025, during which he was posted at CISF Unit, IGI
Airport, New Delhi.
5. To the extent necessary, the facts are that Petitioner joined CISF in
2010 and on completion of basic training, was posted at various locations
from time to time. Between 07.06.2022 to 28.02.2025, Petitioner was posted
in CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi and the grievance is that he was
denied grant of full HRA for the said period.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner was entitled
to full HRA for the period 07.06.2022 to 28.02.2025, however, only 25% as
against 30% was reimbursed, which is evident from the salary slip placed on
record. It is urged that Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of balance 5%
for the period in question as his case is squarely covered by the judgement
of the Division Bench of this Court in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v.
Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, wherein Rule 61 of
Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (‘2001 Rules’) came up for
consideration and it was held that ordinarily, Government accommodation is
provided to all supervisory officers in the ratio of 45% for married and 55%
for unmarried or as may be amended by the Central Government from time
to time, but where accommodation facility is not available, enrolled
members of the Force will be entitled to get HRA in lieu thereof as
applicable to other Central Government Employees. It was also held that
HRA is not in the nature of a concession but forms a component of total
salary as part of conditions of service and the object is to compensate an
employee for the amenities which are not available to him though provided
to other employees. Division Bench observed that transfer or posting is an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 2 of 9


incident of service and there cannot be a discrimination on question of grant
of accommodation or HRA in lieu thereof on the basis of the station one is
posted to. Plea of the Respondents that HRA was extendable only to a
certain percentage of persons on the strength of the cadre for a particular
town was not accepted, holding that the rationale or basis for creating an
artificial category of persons who would be disentitled to accommodation or
HRA was not understood. While there can be percentages assigned between
different categories of personnel for distribution of the accommodation
available, however, if the personnel is not granted family accommodation on
account of being lower in seniority, HRA must follow.
7. Learned counsel submits that the judgment in Jaspal Singh Mann
(supra) was challenged by the Respondents before the Supreme Court but
Civil Appeal 1132/2009 was dismissed and the judgment of this Court was
upheld and thereafter following this judgement, Division Benches in Shaikh
Abdul Khalik and Another v. Director General and Others, 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 7525; Brijesh Kumar v. Director General, Central Industrial
Security Force & Ors, in W.P.(C) 4839/2019, decided on 18.12.2019 ;
Anand Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., in W.P.(C) 6720/2016, decided
on 30.08.2017, have reaffirmed that where accommodation is not provided
to a member of the Force, full HRA must be given, without any co-relation
to place of posting or seniority/percentage in respect of availability of
accommodation. Reliance is also placed on a recent order dated 21.05.2026
in W.P.(C) 8154/2024 titled Ashish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.,
whereby 110 petitions were decided and Respondents were directed to grant
full HRA and release the arrears in three months without any reduction. In
light of these judgements, it is urged that present petition be allowed and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 3 of 9


Respondents be directed to release the balance 5% HRA for the period in
question.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents is unable to dispute the fact that
Government accommodation was not provided to the Petitioner during the
period 07.06.2022 to 28.02.2025 while being posted at CISF Unit, IGI
Airport, New Delhi and/or that only 25% of HRA has been disbursed.

9. Indisputably, Petitioner was posted at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New
Delhi from 07.06.2022 to 28.02.2025, the period for which balance 5%
HRA is claimed in this petition and was not allotted Government
accommodation. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we find merit
in the submission of the Petitioner that his case is covered by the judgment
in Jaspal Singh Mann (supra) as also subsequent judgments, relying on this
judgment. In Jaspal Singh Mann (supra), Petitioner was aggrieved by non-
grant of either rent free accommodation or HRA in lieu thereof and the
reason for denial was that facility of accommodation was extendable only to
certain percentage of persons on the strength of the cadre for a particular
town, relying on Rule 61 of 2001 Rules.
10. Examining and interpreting Rule 61, Division Bench in Jaspal Singh
Mann (supra), first observed that plain reading of Rule 61(1) shows that the
Force is required to provide accommodation to all supervisory officers in the
ratio of 45% for married and 55% for unmarried or as amended by the
Government from time to time. Sub-Rule (2) provides that accommodation
shall be rent free but where such facility was not available, member of the
Force would be entitled to HRA in lieu thereof, as applicable to
other Central Government Employees and sub-Rule (3) provides that
members of the Force are also entitled to compensation in lieu of married
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 4 of 9


accommodation. It was then held in no uncertain terms that HRA is not a
concession but component of salary and hence, part of conditions of service,
being in the nature of compensatory allowance in lieu of accommodation
with the object of compensating an employee for amenities which are not
available to him albeit provided to other employees. Noting that operation of
Rule 61 and its interpretation has given rise to a situation where grant of
accommodation or HRA has become dependent on the place of posting,
Court held that while it is trite that transfer is an incident of service but
Respondents post persons as per their requirements and therefore, there
cannot be any discrimination on the question of grant of accommodation or
HRA in lieu thereof on the basis of the station one is posted to.
Significantly, Division Bench negated the plea of the Respondents that grant
of HRA was linked to seniority of a member of the Force according to
which, he was to be allotted the accommodation and held that the rationale
or basis for creating an artificial category of persons who would be
disentitled to an accommodation or HRA was not understood. It was held
that there can be percentages assigned between different categories of
personnel for allotment of accommodation, which is a natural corollary of
shortage of accommodation and no grievance can be made on this aspect,
however, if a personnel is not granted family accommodation owing to
his lower seniority as per the percentage of distribution of family
accommodation, HRA must follow.
11. It was further observed that Rule 61 as sought to be interpreted by the
Respondents would imply that not only is there a percentage distribution
between different categories but persons falling outside the ambit of
consideration would be deprived even of HRA and therefore, the only
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 5 of 9


manner of reading the Rule which would sustain, would be that the Rule
may not entitle a person to claim family accommodation if he is not at the
required seniority but in that eventuality, he cannot be denied HRA. If Rule
61(1) and 61(3) are read together, the only conclusion can be that while
there may be situation where a house may not be available for allotment to
an officer at a particular station, he cannot be deprived of HRA. Any
contrary interpretation will make the Rule discriminatory and hit by Article
14 of the Constitution of India, having no rationale or nexus with the object
sought to be served. Relevant passages from the judgment are as follows:-
“ 7 . A reading of the aforesaid Rule shows that the respondents Force is
required to provide accommodation in the township itself to all the
supervisory officers in the ratio of 45 per cent for married and 55 per cent
for unmarried or as may be amended by the Central Government from
time to time. Sub-rule 2 provides that the accommodation shall be rent-
free but where such facilities are not available, the members would be
entitled to get House Rent Allowance (HRA) in lieu thereof as applicable
to other Central Government employees. Sub-rule 3 provides that the
members of the force are also entitled to compensation in lieu of married
accommodation in terms of orders issued by the Government from time to
time and the compensation shall be payable to that percentage of members
of Force who are entitled to get married accommodation minus (-) those
members who have got accommodation by the Undertaking.
xxx xxx xxx
12 . We have examined the rival contentions of the parties. The first aspect
to be considered is the concept of the HRA itself. HRA is not in the nature
of a concession but it forms a component of the total salary as part of
condition of service. It is in the nature of a compensatory allowance in lieu
of accommodation. Thus, the object is to compensate an employee for the
amenities which are not available as provided to other employees. The
service personnel of the CISF and other CPOs while posted in different
stations are thus granted accommodation and in case of shortage of the
same HRA is paid.
13. The operation of Rule 61 of the said Rules and its interpretation has
given rise to a situation where the grant of such accommodation or HRA
in lieu thereof is sought to be made dependent where a person is posted.
14. It is trite to say that the transfer or posting is an incident of service.
The respondents post such persons at different stations according to their
requirement and thus there cannot be any discrimination on the question
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 6 of 9


of the grant of accommodation or HRA in lieu thereof on the basis of such
station one is posted to. Thus, merely because the petitioner comes to be
posted at Delhi from Amritsar he cannot be deprived the HRA.
15. Another aspect to be noted is that in some of the para-militarv forces.
100 per cent of the force is being granted family accommodation or HRA
in lieu thereof giving rise to discrimination between personnel of
paramilitary forces and thus principles as laid down in Union of
India v. Dineshan K.K. case (supra) would equally apply.
xxx xxx xxx
17. We fail to appreciate either the rationale or the basis for creating an
artificial category of persons who would be disentitled to an
accommodation or HRA. There can be percentages assigned between
different categories of personnel for distribution of the accommodation
available. This is a natural corollary of shortage of accommodation. The
petitioner cannot make a grievance in respect of the same. However, if a
personnel is not granted a family accommodation on account of his
seniority being lower in his category of persons as per the percentage of
distribution of family accommodation. HRA must follow. The rule as
sought to be interpreted would imply that not only is there a percentage
distribution between different categories but the persons falling outside
the ambit of consideration would be deprived even of the HRA. The only
manner of reading the Rule which would sustain would be that Rule 61 of
the said Rules would not entitle a person to claim family accommodation if
in the percentage of distribution as per sub-rule 1 of Rule 61 of the said
Rules, he is not of sufficient seniority but in that eventuality he is entitled
to the HRA in lieu thereof as applicable to the Central Government
employees. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 61 of the said Rules is unambiguous
inasmuch as it says that those who cannot be provided with a free
accommodation because of the paucity of accommodation which has to be
distributed in the ratio of 45 per cent: 55 per cent in case of married and
unmarried officials, shall be provided HRA in lieu thereof. If Rule 61(1)
and Rule 61(3) of the said Rules are read together, the only conclusion
which can be derived is that while there may be a situation where there
may not be a house available for allotment to an officer posted at a
particular station, he still would be entitled to HRA. However, in case
where a person is entitled to married accommodation but is provided with
unmarried accommodation, then he may also be entitled to compensation
in lieu of married accommodation in addition to the allotment of house
available for unmarried category if he wants to occupy the said house.
18. Reading of Rule 61 of the said Rules in the manner as stated above
would also imply, that the Government circulars on which much reliance
has been placed upon by learned counsel for the respondents, i.e. the
circulars dated 30.3.2000 and 27.11.1980. is misconceived inasmuch as,
those circulars cannot override, the Statute, that is, Rule 61(2) of the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 7 of 9


Rules.
19. A contrary interpretation would make the Rule discriminatory and hit
by Article 14 of the Constitution of India having no rational or nexus with
the object sought to be served. It can hardly be the intent of the
respondents that the grant of HRA is dependent on a chance factor as to
where a person is posted. In fact, this may itself result in unnecessary
representations and pressures by persons for being posted to places where
they would be entitled to such an HRA as posting in other places may
deprive them of this entitlement. Housing in most parts of the country is
expensive and a large expense for a service personnel. The grant of such
HRA. thus, cannot vary from town to town except to the extent that the
amount of HRA would vary dependent on the classification of the
town/city.
20. We also find it a discriminatory practice where personnel of other
para-military forces who are identically situated may be getting an
accommodation or HRA in lieu thereof for all the personnel posted in that
station while such benefit is sought to be denied in other para-military
services.
21. We are, thus, of the considered view that persons in the service of the
respondents when posted to any station would be entitled to either
accommodation or HRA in lieu thereof as per the Central Government
norms, the value of reimbursement being dependent on the city where they
are posted.
22. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to pay to the
petitioner the HRA in lieu of a family accommodation from the date the
petitioner became entitled to claim such family accommodation and Rule
61 of the said Rules is accordingly read down to imply that such
entitlement would be within the parameters of the said Rules. A reading
down of such rule is permissible so as to uphold the said Rule as the
alternative would be to quash the rule as violative of the Constitution of
India and an interpretation which would sustain the rule and yet make it
not arbitrary or discriminatory by reading down the same will be course
of action which would be appropriate. The arrears be paid to the
petitioner within a period of three (3) months from today. ”

12. Therefore, it is clear from a reading of the judgment that owing to low
seniority of the member of the Force, facility of accommodation may not be
available to him, however, he cannot be deprived of HRA in lieu thereof. As
rightly placed by counsel for the Petitioner, post the judgment in Jaspal
Singh Mann (supra), several Division Benches of this Court have held that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 8 of 9


where Respondents are unable to provide accommodation and member of
the Force hires an accommodation at his own expense, he cannot be denied
the benefit of full HRA and in this context, we may allude to the judgments
in Shaikh Abdul (supra); Brijesh Kumar (supra); Anand Kumar (supra);
and Ashish Sharma (supra). It is pertinent to mention that the judgment in
Jaspal Singh Mann (supra) was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1132/2009 and judgment in Brijesh Kumar (supra) was upheld
in Union of India and Ors. v. Paramisivan M., Civil Appeal No. 4967/2023
along with connected matters. Review petition filed in Paramisivan M.
(supra) was also dismissed. In fact, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India also issued Office Memorandum (OM) dated
07.07.2017 fixing percentages of HRA payable to Government Servants in
lieu of Government accommodation.
13. In view of the aforesaid judgements, which squarely apply to the
instant case, we hold that Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of full HRA
for the period 07.06.2022 to 28.02.2025 and consequently, reduction of 5%
HRA is untenable in law. Respondents are directed to release the balance
amount towards HRA due to the Petitioner, within a period of three months
from today. If the arrears are not paid within the time granted by the Court,
Petitioner will be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. till actual
payment.
14. Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


JYOTI SINGH, J.

GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 7, 2026/YA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:45:41
W.P.(C) 14868/2026 Page 9 of 9