01Facts
The petitioner, a CISF member posted at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation from 13 June 2022 to 12 December 2024.
pp. 1–3, 9 · ¶ 3, 6–7He received 25% HRA and sought the unpaid balance of 5%, claiming entitlement to full HRA in lieu of accommodation.
pp. 1–3, 9 · ¶ 3, 6–7He relied on Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India, which interpreted Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and subsequent decisions applying that interpretation.
pp. 2–3, 10 · ¶ 4–5, 1002Issues
i.Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, without a 5% reduction, for the period in question.
pp. 3–4, 9 · ¶ 7, 11ii.Whether the respondents should be directed to pay the balance HRA, and within what time and on what terms.
p. 9 · ¶ 1103Law Applied
Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, provides for accommodation for Force members and HRA in lieu where accommodation is unavailable.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 8–9In Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, the Delhi High Court read Rule 61 to mean that although accommodation may be allotted according to prescribed percentages and seniority, a member who is not provided accommodation cannot thereby be denied HRA; HRA is a compensatory component of service conditions, not a concession.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 8–9The judgment notes that this interpretation was upheld by the Supreme Court and applied in subsequent decisions, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar.
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 10The Court also referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA rates for Government servants in lieu of Government accommodation.
p. 8 · ¶ 1004Reasoning
The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner received no Government accommodation during the relevant period or that only 25% HRA had been paid.
p. 3 · ¶ 6Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that lack of accommodation does not justify withholding part of the HRA otherwise payable.
pp. 3, 8–9 · ¶ 7, 10–11Since the petitioner was not allotted accommodation, the 5% reduction was inconsistent with the governing interpretation of Rule 61.
pp. 3, 8–9 · ¶ 7, 10–1105Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 13 June 2022 to 12 December 2024.
p. 9 · ¶ 11The Court directed the respondents to pay the balance within three months. If payment is delayed beyond that period, the petitioner is entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.
p. 9 · ¶ 11–12The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
p. 9 · ¶ 11–12Original Court PDF
Gurvinder SinghvsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
