CISF Officer Given No Government Quarters For Nearly 8 Years: Delhi HC Orders Full HRA, Rejects 5% Cut

The petitioner, a CISF member, claimed the unpaid balance of 5% HRA for periods when he was posted at CISF units at Pune Airport and IGI Airport, New Delhi, from 7 August 2016 to 25 May 2022 and 26 May 2022 to 18 July 2024.

He had not been allotted government accommodation during those periods and had received only 25% HRA, although he claimed entitlement to 30%.

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

The petitioner sought a direction for payment of the balance; the Court considered the claim in light of prior decisions interpreting Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001.

Rule 61(1)–(3) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for Force members and HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable; the rule was read to prevent a member from being denied HRA because of seniority, accommodation shortages, or place of posting.

The Court relied on *Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors.*, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, which held that HRA is a component of service remuneration and that, where accommodation is not allotted, HRA must follow; a contrary interpretation of Rule 61 would be discriminatory and offend Article 14.

The Court also relied on *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 noted the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable in lieu of government accommodation.

The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner received no government accommodation and only 25% HRA during the claimed periods.

Applying *Jaspal Singh Mann* and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that accommodation availability or a member’s eligibility for allotment cannot justify withholding HRA where accommodation was not provided.

Since the petitioner’s circumstances fell within those precedents, 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.