CISF Member Without Government Housing At Delhi Posting Wins Full HRA, Including 5% Arrears

The petitioner, a CISF member posted at CISF Unit, Samadhi Sthal, New Delhi, from 3 August 2023, was not provided Government accommodation.

The respondents paid him HRA at 25%, and he sought the remaining 5% to receive full HRA for the relevant period.

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

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

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; inability to allot accommodation, including because of seniority or limited availability, does not extinguish entitlement to HRA.

Rule 61 must be read to avoid discrimination contrary to Article 14.

The 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.

The petitioner’s case fell within the principle established in Jaspal Singh Mann: where the Force does not provide accommodation, the member remains entitled to HRA in lieu of it.

Since the respondents did not dispute that no accommodation had been provided or that only 25% HRA had been paid, the Court found no legal basis for withholding the remaining 5%.

A contrary approach would make entitlement depend on accommodation availability or posting circumstances, contrary to Rule 61 as interpreted in the cited precedents.

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 petition was disposed of accordingly.