CISF Head Constable Denied Quarters At DMRC To Get Full HRA, Delhi HC Orders 5% Arrears For 2019-23

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to full HRA, rather than the 25% already paid, for the period she was posted at DMRC, Delhi, without Government accommodation.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 17 August 2019 to 31 December 2023.

It also directed

The Court directed the respondents to pay the balance within three months. If the arrears were not paid within that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would be payable until actual payment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner, a CISF member, was posted at DMRC, Delhi, from 17 August 2019 to 31 December 2023. She was not allotted Government accommodation during that period and received 25% HRA, but claimed the remaining 5% of the 30% HRA payable to her.

¶ 1, 4–5 · p. 1, 3

The respondents did not dispute either the non-allotment of accommodation or the payment of only 25% HRA.

¶ 1, 4–5 · p. 1, 3

The petitioner relied on Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors. and subsequent decisions holding that a Force member who is not provided accommodation is entitled to HRA in lieu thereof.

¶ 2–3 · pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to full HRA, rather than the 25% already paid, for the period she was posted at DMRC, Delhi, without Government accommodation.

¶ 1, 4–5, 9 · p. 1, 3, 9

ii.2. Whether the respondents should be directed to pay the balance HRA and, if payment was delayed beyond the time granted, interest on the arrears.

¶ 9 · p. 9

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for Force members and, where accommodation is unavailable, HRA in lieu thereof as applicable to other Central Government employees.

¶ 6–7 · pp. 4–7

In Jaspal Singh Mann, the Delhi High Court held that HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession; a member who is not allotted accommodation because of scarcity or seniority cannot therefore be denied HRA. Rule 61 must be read consistently with Article 14, and cannot be interpreted to make entitlement depend arbitrarily on posting or accommodation-allotment percentages.

¶ 6–7 · pp. 4–8

The Court also relied on subsequent decisions applying that principle, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar, and noted the Supreme Court’s affirmance of Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar.

¶ 8 · p. 8

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s case fell within the rule in Jaspal Singh Mann: she was a Force member posted at Delhi, received no Government accommodation, and was paid only 25% HRA. The respondents did not contest those facts.

¶ 4–5 · p. 3

Since the cited authorities establish that non-allotment of accommodation does not extinguish entitlement to HRA in lieu thereof, the Court held that withholding the remaining 5% was legally untenable. The subsequent decisions and the Department of Expenditure’s 7 July 2017 Office Memorandum further supported the claim to full HRA.

¶ 8–9 · pp. 8–9