CISF Officer Posted At DMRC Without Government Housing Must Get Full HRA, Delhi HC Orders 5% Balance

The petitioner, a CISF member, was posted at CISF Units at DMRC, New Delhi, from 26 May 2023 to 24 March 2025.

He was not provided Government accommodation during that period and received 25% HRA.

He sought payment of the withheld 5%, claiming entitlement to full HRA in lieu of accommodation.

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

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, read as a whole, entitles a member who is not provided accommodation to HRA in lieu thereof, as applicable to other Central Government employees; limits on accommodation allotment do not extinguish that entitlement.

The Division Bench’s decision in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, held that HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, and read Rule 61 to prevent denial of both accommodation and HRA on grounds such as seniority or station of posting.

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.

A contrary interpretation of Rule 61 would be discriminatory and inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner had not been allotted accommodation during the relevant period, a fact the respondents did not contest.

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that Rule 61 does not permit the respondents to deny part of the HRA where accommodation has not been provided.

The distinction based on accommodation availability or allotment limits could affect access to a house, but could not defeat the entitlement to HRA in lieu of it.

The Court therefore found the 5% reduction legally untenable.

The respondents were directed to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would be payable until actual payment.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.