CISF Member Not Allotted Government Housing Is Owed Full HRA, Delhi HC Orders 5% Balance

In brief

The question

Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation during the relevant posting periods was entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the 5% reduction

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 3 July 2019 to May 2022 and 12 June 2022 to 8 July 2024.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to release 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, was posted at Mumbai Airport from 3 July 2019 to May 2022 and at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi, from 12 June 2022 to 8 July 2024.

p. 1 · ¶ 3

He was not provided Government accommodation during either period and received only 25% HRA. He sought the balance 5%, claiming entitlement to full HRA for both periods

p. 3 · ¶ 6–7

02Issues

i.Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation during the relevant posting periods was entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the 5% reduction

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6–7

ii.Whether the respondents were required to pay the balance HRA, and, if so, whether interest would apply for delayed payment

p. 9 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

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; it also addresses compensation in lieu of married accommodation

pp. 4–7 · ¶ 8

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 that a member who is not allotted accommodation cannot be denied HRA because of seniority, accommodation-allocation percentages, or place of posting; Rule 61 must be read accordingly to avoid arbitrariness under Article 14

pp. 4–8 · ¶ 8–9

The Court also relied on Shaikh Abdul Khalik v. Director General, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7525; Brijesh Kumar v. Director General, CISF, W.P.(C) 4839/2019; and Anand Kumar v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 6720/2016, as well as the Supreme Court’s upholding of Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar

p. 9 · ¶ 10

The Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 fixed HRA percentages payable to Government servants in lieu of Government accommodation

p. 9 · ¶ 10

04Reasoning

The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner received no Government accommodation during the claimed periods and had been paid only 25% HRA

p. 3 · ¶ 6

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that lack of accommodation—not the petitioner’s location or eligibility under allocation percentages—was decisive: a CISF member not provided accommodation is entitled to HRA in lieu thereof, and the 5% reduction could not be sustained

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 10–11