CISF Member Without Government Housing Is Owed Full HRA, Delhi HC Orders 5% Arrears For 2019–24

In brief

The question

Whether a CISF member who was not provided government accommodation is entitled to full HRA in lieu thereof, notwithstanding the respondent’s payment of only 25% HRA.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for December 2019–May 2022 and June 2022–18 July 2024.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was delayed beyond 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 and then IGI Airport, New Delhi, during the periods December 2019–May 2022 and June 2022–18 July 2024.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3, 6–7

She was not provided government accommodation during either period and received only 25% HRA. She sought the unpaid balance, contending that she was entitled to full HRA in lieu of accommodation.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3, 6–7

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

p. 3 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether a CISF member who was not provided government accommodation is entitled to full HRA in lieu thereof, notwithstanding the respondent’s payment of only 25% HRA.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6–7

ii.Whether the respondents could reduce the petitioner’s HRA entitlement by 5% for the periods in which accommodation was not provided.

p. 9 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for Force members and HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable; it was read down to ensure that a member not allotted accommodation—including due to seniority or limited availability—cannot thereby be denied HRA.

pp. 4–8 · ¶ 8–9

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, and that denying it based on posting or accommodation-allotment percentages would be discriminatory.

pp. 2–3, 4–8 · ¶ 4, 8–9

The Court also relied on Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar, as well as the Supreme Court’s affirmance of Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar.

pp. 3, 8–9 · ¶ 5, 10

The Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 was also noted as fixing HRA percentages payable in lieu of government accommodation.

p. 9 · ¶ 10

04Reasoning

The respondents’ admitted failure to provide accommodation brought the petitioner’s claim within Rule 61 as interpreted in Jaspal Singh Mann.

pp. 4–8 · ¶ 8–10

The Court reasoned that accommodation-allotment percentages may govern who receives the available housing, but cannot deprive a member who receives no accommodation of HRA in lieu thereof.

pp. 4–8 · ¶ 8–10

Because HRA is compensatory and part of the conditions of service, reducing the petitioner’s entitlement based on the absence of accommodation was inconsistent with Rule 61 and the cited precedents.

pp. 4–8 · ¶ 8–10

The Court therefore found the deduction of 5% untenable.

p. 9 · ¶ 11