CISF Member Not Allotted Government Housing Is Entitled To Full HRA, Delhi HC Orders Arrears

The petitioner, a CISF member, sought payment of the 5% balance of HRA for periods between 5 March 2018 and the date full HRA was sanctioned, covering postings at CISF units in New Delhi, Varanasi Airport and Noida, NISA, and IGI Airport, including a training period.

He had not been allotted Government accommodation during the claimed periods, and the respondents had paid only 25% HRA.

He relied principally on the Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., contending that full HRA was payable when accommodation was unavailable.

The respondents did not dispute the absence of accommodation or the payment of only 25% HRA.

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

In Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, the Court held that HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession; lack of accommodation—including due to seniority or shortage—does not extinguish entitlement to HRA, and Rule 61 must be read down to avoid discrimination under Article 14.

The Court also relied on Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar, as well as the Supreme Court’s affirmance of Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar.

The Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable in lieu of Government accommodation was also noted.

The petitioner’s case fell within the principle in Jaspal Singh Mann: the respondents did not dispute that he had not been provided accommodation and had received only 25% HRA.

Rule 61 could not be interpreted to make HRA depend on posting station, seniority, or accommodation availability; such an interpretation would create an artificial class of personnel denied both accommodation and its monetary substitute and would be discriminatory under Article 14.

As subsequent Division Bench decisions and Supreme Court rulings affirmed the applicable principle, the Court held that the 5% reduction was not legally sustainable.

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if unpaid within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.