CISF Member Without Government Housing Gets Full HRA, As Delhi HC Orders Payment Of 5% Balance

The petitioner, a CISF member, was posted at CISF Unit, DMRC, Delhi; RTC Behror; CISF Unit ADG HQ, Kolkata; and CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi, during the periods specified in the petition.

He was not allotted Government accommodation during those periods but received only 25% HRA.

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

Rule 61 of the 2001 Rules provides for accommodation for Force members, rent-free accommodation where available, and HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable.

In Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, the Delhi High Court read down Rule 61 to hold that, although accommodation may be distributed by category and seniority, a member who is not allotted accommodation cannot thereby be denied HRA; HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession.

The Court noted that this principle was followed in Shaikh Abdul Khalik v. Director General, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7525, Brijesh Kumar v. Director General, CISF, W.P.(C) 4839/2019 (18 December 2019), and Anand Kumar v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 6720/2016 (30 August 2017), and that Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Court also referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable to Government servants in lieu of Government accommodation.

The petitioner’s case fell within the rule established in Jaspal Singh Mann: he was not provided accommodation during the claimed periods, and the respondents did not dispute that fact or that only 25% HRA had been paid.

The Court held that accommodation-allocation limits or a member’s seniority may determine who receives an available house, but cannot justify withholding HRA from a member who receives no accommodation.

Applying that principle and the subsequent decisions affirming it, the Court found the 5% reduction legally untenable.

It 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 accrue until payment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.