Full Judgment Text
$~20.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4070/2016 and CM APPL. 17112-13/2016
AOTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr. Srikant Mishra, Mr. S.S. Rai and Mr. Amit
Mehta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
% 09.05.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for directions to the respondent No.2-CISF to pay him House Rent
Allowance (hereinafter referred to as ‘HRA’) , to which he is legitimately
entitled.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though
the prayer in the petition is for payment of HRA arrears for overstay periods
even beyond three years, the petitioner proposes to confine the relief to grant
of HRA for a period of three years reckoned backwards from today i.e. from
09.05.2013.
3. The petitioner herein, who is enrolled as a member of the respondent
No.2-CISF, had approached the respondent No.2 for permission to live out
of campus with family, which was duly granted. The petitioner was not
provided with the Government Accommodation (Married).
4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the issue raised here is no
WP(C) 4070/2016 Page 1 of 3
longer res integra as several other petitions for the same relief have been
filed in this court from time to time, including a batch of matters, lead matter
being W.P.(C) 5407/2015 entitled Avijit Das Vs. Union of India & Ors . ,
th
that were allowed by a Coordinate Bench vide Judgment dated 27 May,
2015. In the said petitions, the respondent No.2-CISF’s position was that
since the petitioners had been provided with barrack accommodation but
were later permitted to leave the said premises, they would not be entitled to
claim HRA. Turning down the respondent’s plea and relying upon a
decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 1712/2006 entitled
rd
Inspct./Exe Jaspal Singh Mann Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 23 May, 2008,
the Division Bench had issued a writ of mandamus to the respondent-CISF
that if no official accommodation was made available to the petitioners in
the said case, then they would be paid HRA for the period for which outdoor
residence permission was granted to them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the judgment
th
dated 27 May, 2015, another batch of matters that had raised the same
th
issue, was allowed on 7 April, 2015, by the Division Bench in W.P.(C)
3340/2015 entitled Jamila Hassina Vs. Union of India & Ors . Aggrieved by
the said order, the respondents had preferred Special Leave Petition
No.15026/2015 (later on converted into Special Leave Petition (Civil)
24592/2015) before the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed at the
th
stage of admission on 24 August, 2015. It is thus submitted that the
petitioners are entitled to the same relief, as has been granted to other
th
similarly placed petitioners in terms of the judgment dated 7 April, 2015,
as it has since attained finality.
6. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not interfered in the
WP(C) 4070/2016 Page 2 of 3
th
judgment dated 7 April, 2015 pronounced by the Division Bench in the
th
case of Jamila Hassina (supra) and vide order dated 24 August, 2015,
Special Leave Petition (Civil) 24592/2015 , has been dismissed, we are of the
opinion that the principle of law raised in the said petitions has been
conclusively decided and it should apply in rem to all similarly placed
personnel in the CISF, including the petitioners herein.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition and the application are disposed
of by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents that the petitioner be
paid HRA, but only for a period of three years reckoned backwards from
today i.e. from 09.05.2013, as he was granted outdoor residence permission
for the said period, though he was entitled to official accommodation
(married). While making the payment of HRA, the monetary compensation
paid to the petitioners in terms of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 61 of the CISF Rules,
2001 shall be duly adjusted. The said payment shall be released to the
petitioners within a period of four months from today. If the said amount is
not released to the petitioners within the stipulated timeline, then the same
shall be paid by the respondents along with simple interest @8% per annum
after the expiry of four months, till the date of payment.
8. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 09, 2016
rkb
WP(C) 4070/2016 Page 3 of 3