CISF Member Without Government Housing Wins Full HRA; Delhi HC Orders Unpaid 5% Arrears

In brief

The question

1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation was entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding that only 25% had been paid

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the claimed periods.

It also directed

The Court directed the respondents to pay the balance due 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 petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner, a CISF member, sought payment of the balance 5% HRA for periods when he was posted at CISF Units at Trichy Airport, Nagpur Airport and IGI Airport, New Delhi, but was not provided Government accommodation. The periods claimed were April 2021–March 2022, April 2022–6 June 2023, and June 2025 until full HRA was sanctioned.

p. 1, 3

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

p. 1, 3

The petitioner relied on earlier Division Bench decisions holding that HRA could not be denied where accommodation was unavailable.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation was entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding that only 25% had been paid

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the respondents could reduce HRA by 5% for the claimed periods

p. 9

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for Force members and, where accommodation is unavailable, HRA in lieu thereof as applicable to other Central Government employees.

pp. 4–5

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; a member who is not allotted accommodation because of shortage or seniority cannot therefore be denied HRA. Rule 61 must be read down to avoid an interpretation that makes entitlement depend arbitrarily on posting or accommodation-allocation percentages.

pp. 5–8

The Court also relied on subsequent decisions applying that principle, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, Anand Kumar, and Ashish Sharma.

pp. 3, 8–9

04Reasoning

The respondents’ admissions established that the petitioner had received no Government accommodation for the claimed periods and had been paid only 25% HRA.

p. 3

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that the absence of accommodation entitled the petitioner to HRA in lieu thereof; an accommodation-allocation limit could not justify withholding part of that entitlement. The Court therefore found the 5% reduction legally untenable.

pp. 8–9