01Facts
The petitioner, a CISF member, was posted at CISF Units at DMRC, New Delhi, from 1 July 2020 to 1 May 2022, and at IGI Airport, New Delhi, from 1 June 2025 onwards.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–8He was not allotted Government accommodation during these periods but received only 25% HRA; he sought the remaining 5% to bring his HRA to the full 30% claimed.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–8The respondents did not dispute the absence of accommodation or the payment of only 25% HRA.
p. 3 · ¶ 702Issues
i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding any limitation based on the percentage or availability of accommodation.
pp. 2–5 · ¶ 5, 8–10ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the unpaid balance of HRA for the periods in question.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–803Law Applied
Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for Force members and HRA in lieu where accommodation is unavailable; it must be read so that a member who cannot obtain accommodation because of shortage, seniority, or the applicable allocation ratio is not denied HRA.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 9–10HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession; withholding it solely because of the place of posting or accommodation-allocation limits would be discriminatory and inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 9–10The Court relied on Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, and subsequent decisions, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar, applying the principle that unavailable accommodation must be compensated by HRA.
pp. 2–3, 8 · ¶ 5–6, 11It also noted that the Supreme Court had upheld Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar, and referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 on HRA rates.
p. 8 · ¶ 11Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151
04Reasoning
The petitioner’s case fell within the rule in Jaspal Singh Mann: he had not been allotted accommodation during the claimed periods, and the respondents did not dispute that only 25% HRA had been paid.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–8Applying Rule 61 as interpreted in the cited decisions, the Court held that accommodation-allocation limits or the station of posting could not justify withholding the balance HRA where accommodation was unavailable.
pp. 4–8 · ¶ 9–12The Court therefore found the 5% reduction unlawful.
pp. 4–8 · ¶ 9–1205Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 1 July 2020 to 1 May 2022 and from 1 June 2025 onwards.
p. 9 · ¶ 12–13It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would accrue until payment.
p. 9 · ¶ 12–13The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
p. 9 · ¶ 12–13Original Court PDF
Si/Exe Sombir SinghvsUnion Of India & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
