CISF Member Without Government Housing At IGI To Get Full HRA And 5% Arrears From June 2024, Delhi HC Orders

In brief

The question

Whether a CISF member who has not been provided government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the percentage-based allocation of accommodation under Rule 61 of the 2001 Rules.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA from 16 June 2024 until the date full HRA was sanctioned.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to pay the outstanding balance within three months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would accrue until payment.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner, a CISF member posted at the CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi, from 16 June 2024, was not provided government accommodation.

p. 1 · p. 3

He received HRA at 25% and sought payment of the balance 5%, claiming entitlement to full HRA for the period from 16 June 2024 until full HRA was sanctioned.

p. 1 · p. 3

Relying on earlier Division Bench decisions concerning Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (“2001 Rules”), he sought a direction for payment of full HRA.

pp. 2–3

The respondents did not dispute that accommodation had not been provided or that only 25% HRA had been paid.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether a CISF member who has not been provided government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the percentage-based allocation of accommodation under Rule 61 of the 2001 Rules.

pp. 3–5

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to the unpaid balance of HRA for the period claimed.

p. 3 · pp. 8–9

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the 2001 Rules provides for accommodation for Force members and HRA in lieu of accommodation where the facility is unavailable.

pp. 4–7

The Delhi High Court’s interpretation in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, is that HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession, and cannot be denied because of accommodation shortages, seniority, or place of posting.

pp. 4–7

A construction of Rule 61 that denies both accommodation and HRA to members who do not receive accommodation would be discriminatory and contrary to Article 14; the Rule must therefore be read down to preserve HRA entitlement.

pp. 5–7

The Court also relied on subsequent decisions applying that interpretation, 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.

p. 3 · p. 8

04Reasoning

The petitioner was not allotted government accommodation during the relevant period, and the respondents did not contest that fact or the payment of only 25% HRA.

p. 3

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that accommodation-allocation limits do not extinguish a member’s entitlement to HRA in lieu of accommodation.

p. 3 · pp. 8–9

Since the petitioner’s circumstances fell within that principle, the 5% reduction was legally untenable.

pp. 8–9

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA from 16 June 2024 until the date full HRA was sanctioned.

p. 9

It directed the respondents to pay the outstanding balance within three months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would accrue until payment.

p. 9

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

p. 9

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF