Hc/Gd Mandip Kaur vs Union Of India & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~124, 139 and 143
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 14 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010498972026
+ W.P.(C) 15303/2026
HC/GD MANDIP KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aarti Singh, Mr. Karandeep
Singh Reikhi and Mr. Jaivardhan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Varun Chugh, SPC with Mr.
Amit Kumar Rana, GP.
139
# CNR No. DLHC010500242026
+ W.P.(C) 15339/2026
SI/EXE VINOD KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aarti Singh, Mr. Karandeep
Singh Reikhi and Mr. Jaivardhan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Dhananjai Rana, CGSC.
143
# CNR No. DLHC010500512026
+ W.P.(C) 15364/2026
ASI EXE RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aarti Singh, Mr. Karandeep
Singh Reikhi and Mr. Jaivardhan, Advocates.
versus
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 1 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyam Pahal, SPC with Mr.
Sarthak Rana, GP with AC. J.P. Singh and Insp.
Yashpal.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 71811/2026 in W.P.(C) 15303/2026
CM APPL. 72010/2026 in W.P.(C) 15339/2026
CM APPL. 72086/2026 in W.P.(C) 15364/2026
1. These applications are filed on behalf of the Petitioners seeking
permission to file detailed synopsis and lists of dates.
2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. Lists
of dates and synopsis are taken on record.
3. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 15303/2026
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
full House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the Petitioner for the period
01.04.2015 to 31.01.2016 during which she was posted at CISF Unit, Trichy
Airport, Trichy and the period 01.02.2023 to 31.12.2024, during which she
was posted at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi, as she was not allotted the
Government accommodation.
W.P.(C) 15339/2026
5. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 2 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the Respondents to grant
full House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the Petitioner for the periods
24.04.2017 to 29.05.2022; 30.05.2022 to 15.06.2024; and 16.06.2024 to
th
14.04.2026, during which he was posted at CISF Unit, 10 Reserve Bn
Bengaluru; CISF Unit, ASG Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh; and CISF Unit, IGI
Airport, New Delhi respectively, as he was not allotted accommodation.
W.P.(C) 15364/2026
6. 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
full House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the Petitioner for the period
01.07.2017 to 31.12.2021, during which he was posted at CISF Unit,
Bengaluru Airport, Bengaluru as also for the period 01.08.2022 to
31.03.2023, during which he was posted at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New
Delhi.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioners were not
provided accommodations by the CISF and were thus entitled to 30% HRA
for the periods in question, however, only 25% was reimbursed and balance
5% has not been paid till date. It is urged that cases of the Petitioners for
payment of 5% balance HRA are 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 3 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
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
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, observing 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.
8. 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 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 ; and Anand Kumar v. Union of India
and Ors., in W.P.(C) 6720/2016, decided on 30.08.2017, have re-affirmed
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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 4 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
seniority/percentage in respect of availability of accommodation. In W.P.(C)
8154/2024 titled Ashish Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., decided on
21.05.2026 along with 109 other petitions, Respondents were directed to
grant full HRA and release the arrears in three months without any
reduction.
9. Learned counsels for the Respondents are unable to dispute the fact
that Government accommodations were not provided to the Petitioners in
these writ petitions during the periods, for which balance 5% HRA is
sought or that the cases of the Petitioners are covered by the judgments
relied upon.
10. Having heard learned counsels for the Petitioners, we find merit in
their submissions. Indisputably, Petitioner in W.P.(C) 15303/2026 was
posted at CISF Unit, Trichy Airport, Trichy and CISF Unit, IGI Airport,
New Delhi during the periods 01.04.2015 to 31.01.2016 and 01.02.2023 to
31.12.2024, respectively and Petitioner in W.P.(C) 15339/2026 was posted
th
at CISF Unit, 10 Reserve BN Bengaluru; CISF Unit, ASG Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh; and CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi during the periods
24.04.2017 to 29.05.2022; 30.05.2022 to 15.06.2024; and 16.06.2024 to
14.04.2026, respectively, while Petitioner in W.P.(C) 15364/2026 was
posted at CISF Unit, Bengaluru Airport, Bengaluru and CISF Unit, IGI
Airport, New Delhi for the periods 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2021 and
01.08.2022 to 31.03.2023, respectively. Since they were not allotted
Government accommodations during these periods, they have sought 5%
balance HRA as only 25% was reimbursed. As rightly argued on behalf of
the Petitioners, their cases are covered on all four corners by the judgment of
the Division Bench in Jaspal Singh Mann (supra) as also subsequent
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 5 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
judgments, relying on this judgment.
11. 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,
basis Rule 61 of 2001 Rules. Examining and interpreting Rule 61, Division
Bench in Jaspal Singh Mann (supra), 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 accommodation. It was 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 6 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
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 ruled 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.
12. Division Bench 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 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 7 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
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
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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 8 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
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
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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 9 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
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. ”
13. 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 Petitioners, post the judgment in Jaspal
Singh Mann (supra), several Division Benches of this Court have held that
where Respondents are unable to provide accommodation and member of
the Force hires 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.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 10 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
(supra) was also dismissed. In fact, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India has issued Office Memorandum (OM) dated
07.07.2017 fixing percentages of HRA payable to Government Servants in
lieu of Government accommodation. Recently, Division Bench has allowed
a batch of 110 petitions by a common order in Ashish Sharma (supra),
holding Petitioners entitled to grant of full HRA and consequently, directing
reimbursement of balance 5%.
14. In view of the aforesaid judgements, which squarely apply to the
instant cases, we hold that Petitioner in W.P.(C) 15303/2026 is entitled to
reimbursement of full HRA for the periods 01.04.2015 to 31.01.2016 and
01.02.2023 to 31.12.2024; Petitioner in W.P.(C) 15339/2026 is entitled to
reimbursement of full HRA for the periods 24.04.2017 to 29.05.2022;
30.05.2022 to 15.06.2024; and 16.06.2024 to 14.04.2026; and Petitioner in
W.P.(C) 15364/2026 is entitled to reimbursement of full HRA for the
periods 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2021; and 01.08.2022 to 31.03.2023 and
consequently, reduction of 5% HRA is untenable in law. Respondents are
directed to release the balance amount towards HRA due to the Petitioners,
within a period of three months from today. If the arrears are not paid within
the time granted by the Court, Petitioners will be entitled to simple interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. till actual payment.
15. Writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JYOTI SINGH, J
GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026/YA
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15303/2026 and connected matters Page 11 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23