CISF Member Without Government Housing Must Get Full HRA: Delhi HC Orders 5% Arrears, With 6% Interest If Unpaid After 3 Months

The petitioner, a CISF member posted at units in CGBS, New Delhi and IGI Airport, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation during the periods commencing 20 May 2022 and 26 April 2023.

The respondents did not dispute that only 25% HRA had been paid, and the petitioner sought the balance 5% to bring his HRA to the full applicable rate.

He relied on earlier Delhi High Court decisions holding that a CISF member who is not allotted accommodation is entitled to HRA in lieu thereof.

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 requires provision of accommodation to Force members in the prescribed categories; where accommodation is unavailable, a member is entitled to HRA in lieu thereof as applicable to other Central Government employees.

HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession.

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 a member who cannot be allotted accommodation—including because of seniority or shortage—cannot thereby be denied HRA; a contrary interpretation would be arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court also relied on subsequent Delhi High Court decisions applying that principle and on the Supreme Court’s affirmance of Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar v. Director General, CISF & Ors.

The judgment additionally 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 respondents did not dispute that the petitioner received no Government accommodation during the relevant periods and had been paid only 25% HRA.

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions cited, the Court held that the absence of accommodation—not the petitioner’s place of posting or his position in any accommodation-allocation category—entitled him to HRA in lieu thereof.

Since the governing principle required HRA at the applicable Central Government rate, the 5% reduction was untenable.

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA 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.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.