CISF Head Constable Without Government Housing Wins Full HRA As Delhi HC Orders 5% Balance Paid Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

Whether a CISF member who has not been allotted government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, rather than a reduced amount, for the periods claimed.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 1 January 2017 to 31 May 2018 and from 1 August 2025 onwards.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was not made within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner, a CISF member posted at CISF units at DMRC, Delhi and IGI Airport, New Delhi, sought full House Rent Allowance (HRA) for 1 January 2017 to 31 May 2018 and from 1 August 2025 onwards.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 4, 7–8

She had not been allotted government accommodation during those periods and had received only 25% HRA, claiming the remaining 5%.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 4, 7–8

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

p. 3 · ¶ 7

The petitioner invoked the Delhi High Court’s decision in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors. and subsequent decisions.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–6

02Issues

i.Whether a CISF member who has not been allotted government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, rather than a reduced amount, for the periods claimed.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–10

ii.Whether the respondents could withhold 5% of the petitioner’s HRA because accommodation was unavailable or not allotted to her.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 11–12

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation to Force members and HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable.

pp. 4–8 · ¶ 9–10

In Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, the Delhi High Court held that HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession; where accommodation is not allotted, including because of seniority or limited availability, HRA must follow, and entitlement cannot depend discriminatorily on posting location or allotment percentages.

pp. 4–8 · ¶ 9–10

The Court noted that this approach had been followed in Shaikh Abdul Khalik v. Director General, Brijesh Kumar v. Director General, CISF and Anand Kumar v. Union of India, and that Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

p. 8 · ¶ 11

It also referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable to government servants in lieu of government accommodation.

p. 8 · ¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s claim fell within the principle established in Jaspal Singh Mann: inability to provide or allot accommodation does not extinguish the member’s entitlement to HRA in lieu of it.

pp. 3–4, 8–9 · ¶ 7–12

Since the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner had received no government accommodation during the relevant periods and had been paid only 25% HRA, the Court held that the 5% reduction was legally unsustainable.

pp. 3–4, 8–9 · ¶ 7–12

The subsequent decisions cited by the petitioner reinforced that conclusion.

pp. 3–4, 8–9 · ¶ 7–12

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 1 January 2017 to 31 May 2018 and from 1 August 2025 onwards.

p. 9 · ¶ 12–13

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was not made within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.

p. 9 · ¶ 12–13

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

p. 9 · ¶ 12–13

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF