CISF Member Without Government Quarters Gets Full HRA As Delhi HC Orders Remaining 5% Paid In 3 Months, With 6% Interest For Delay

The petitioner, a CISF member, was posted at CISF Units at DMRC, CGBS and Samadhi Sthal, New Delhi, during the periods commencing 1 April 2018, 6 May 2022 and 3 August 2023, respectively. He was not provided Government accommodation during the relevant periods and had received only 25% HRA. He sought payment of the balance 5% of the full applicable HRA, relying on prior decisions concerning CISF members who were not allotted accommodation.

The respondents did not dispute the absence of accommodation or the payment of only 25% HRA.

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation to CISF personnel and HRA in lieu where accommodation is unavailable; it was read down in *Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors.*, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, so that a member who is not allotted accommodation because of shortage, seniority or the applicable allotment ratio cannot thereby be denied HRA.

The Court noted that HRA is a compensatory component of salary and a condition of service, rather than a concession, and that its denial in those circumstances would be discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The 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. It further referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 on HRA rates payable in lieu of Government accommodation.

The petitioner’s claim fell within the rule in *Jaspal Singh Mann*: the respondents had not provided him accommodation, and they did not dispute that only 25% HRA had been paid.

Under Rule 61 as interpreted in that decision, limits on accommodation allotment do not extinguish entitlement to HRA in lieu; denying the balance on that basis would be inconsistent with the Rule and the Article 14 principle identified in the prior cases. The Court therefore found the 5% reduction legally 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.