CISF Officer Given Only 25% HRA Despite No Government Housing: Delhi HC Orders Remaining 5% in Arrears

In brief

The question

1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation for the relevant periods was entitled to full HRA, without a 5% reduction.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 1 June–31 July 2022, 1 August 2022–31 January 2023, and from 28 May 2025 onwards.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to release the outstanding balance 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, sought the unpaid balance of HRA for 1 June–31 July 2022, 1 August 2022–31 January 2023, and from 28 May 2025 onwards, corresponding to postings at CISF units in Bengaluru, Ahmedabad, and New Delhi.

¶ 4–5, 7–8

He asserted that no Government accommodation had been provided and that only 25% HRA had been paid, although he was entitled to 30%. The respondents did not dispute the non-allotment of accommodation or the payment of only 25% HRA for the relevant periods.

¶ 4–5, 7–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation for the relevant periods was entitled to full HRA, without a 5% reduction.

¶ 4–5, 8

ii.2. Whether the respondents should be directed to pay the outstanding HRA and, if so, within what period and subject to what consequence for delay.

¶ 12

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; the rule was read to mean that a member who is not allotted accommodation—including due to seniority or limited availability—cannot thereby be denied HRA.

¶ 9–10

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 entitlement to HRA cannot depend on the station of posting or an employee’s position in an accommodation-allotment category.

¶ 5, 9–10

The Court also relied on subsequent decisions applying that principle, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar, and referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable in lieu of Government accommodation.

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court applied Rule 61 as interpreted in Jaspal Singh Mann: while accommodation may be distributed according to prescribed categories and availability, failure to allot it does not extinguish the member’s entitlement to HRA in lieu.

¶ 7–12

The respondents’ undisputed failure to provide accommodation, coupled with their payment of only 25% HRA, brought the petitioner’s claim within that rule and the subsequent decisions applying it. Accordingly, the 5% reduction was not legally sustainable.

¶ 7–12