01Facts
The petitioner, a CISF member posted at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation from 28 July 2024 to 17 October 2026.
¶ 3–7 · pp. 1–3He received 25% HRA and sought the balance 5%, claiming entitlement to full HRA in lieu of accommodation.
¶ 3–7 · pp. 1–3The respondents did not dispute the absence of accommodation or the amount paid.
¶ 3–7 · pp. 1–3The petition also sought full HRA for future postings.
¶ 3–7 · pp. 1–302Issues
i.Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation was entitled to full HRA, without a 5% reduction, for the period in question
¶ 7, 10–11 · pp. 3, 8–9ii.Whether entitlement to HRA could be restricted by the member’s seniority, the availability of accommodation, or the station of posting
¶ 8–9 · pp. 4–703Law 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, at rates applicable to other Central Government employees.
¶ 8–9 · pp. 4–7In 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 unavailable or not allotted, HRA must follow, and Rule 61 must be read to avoid discrimination under Article 14.
¶ 4, 8–9 · pp. 2, 4–7The Court also relied on subsequent decisions applying that principle, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar, and noted that Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
¶ 5, 10 · p. 3, 8The Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 was also noted as fixing HRA percentages for Government servants in lieu of Government accommodation.
¶ 10 · p. 804Reasoning
The respondents’ undisputed failure to provide accommodation meant that the petitioner’s claim fell within the principle established in Jaspal Singh Mann: a member who does not receive accommodation cannot be denied HRA in lieu of it because of seniority or the allocation limits governing accommodation.
¶ 6–10 · pp. 3–8The Court considered that principle reaffirmed by subsequent decisions and applied it to the petitioner’s claim for the unpaid portion of HRA.
¶ 10–11 · pp. 8–9It therefore held the 5% reduction legally untenable.
¶ 10–11 · pp. 8–905Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the period from 28 July 2024 to 17 October 2026.
¶ 11–12 · p. 9It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would be payable until actual payment.
¶ 11–12 · p. 9The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
¶ 11–12 · p. 9Original Court PDF
Suraj KumarvsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
