01Facts
The petitioner, a CISF member, sought payment of the balance 5% HRA for periods when he was posted at CISF Unit ASG, Jaipur (17 June 2020 to June 2022) and CISF Unit ASG, New Delhi (from June 2024 until full HRA was sanctioned).
p. 1, 3 · ¶ 1, 4–5He had not been allotted government accommodation during those periods, and the respondents did not dispute that only 25% HRA had been disbursed.
p. 1, 3 · ¶ 1, 4–5Relying principally on Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India, the petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 for payment of full HRA.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–302Issues
i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not allotted government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding a 5% reduction in the amount paid.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4–5ii.2. Whether the entitlement to HRA may be restricted by the member’s posting station or the applicable allocation of accommodation.
pp. 4–8 · ¶ 6–803Law Applied
Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation to Force members and HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable; the Division Bench in Jaspal Singh Mann read the Rule to mean that a member not allotted accommodation because of shortage or seniority cannot thereby be denied HRA.
pp. 4–8 · ¶ 6–7It held that HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession, and that denying it on the basis of posting or accommodation-allocation categories would be discriminatory under Article 14.
pp. 4–8 · ¶ 6–7The 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.
pp. 3, 8–9 · ¶ 3, 8The Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 was also noted as fixing HRA percentages payable to government servants in lieu of government accommodation.
p. 9 · ¶ 804Reasoning
The respondents’ undisputed failure to provide accommodation and their payment of only 25% HRA brought the petitioner’s claim within the principle in Jaspal Singh Mann.
pp. 3–9 · ¶ 4–9Applying that decision and the subsequent authorities, the Court held that shortage of accommodation, seniority, or the place of posting cannot justify withholding the balance HRA where accommodation has not been provided.
pp. 3–9 · ¶ 4–9The 5% reduction was therefore untenable in law.
pp. 3–9 · ¶ 4–905Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for both claimed periods.
p. 9 · ¶ 9–10The Court directed the respondents to release the balance arrears 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.
p. 9 · ¶ 9–10The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
p. 9 · ¶ 9–10Original Court PDF
Kana Ram ChoudharyvsUnion Of India And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
