01Facts
The petitioner, a CISF member posted at CGBS, New Delhi and Samadhi Sthal, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation during the relevant periods beginning 23 June 2021 and 7 May 2025.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–7The respondents did not dispute the non-allotment of accommodation or that only 25% HRA had been paid.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–7The petitioner sought full HRA, including the withheld 5%, relying principally on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–702Issues
i.1. Whether a CISF member who is not provided Government accommodation is entitled to full HRA in lieu thereof, notwithstanding any limitation based on seniority, accommodation-allocation percentages, or place of posting.
pp. 4–7 · ¶ 8–10ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the balance 5% HRA for the periods claimed, and what relief should follow.
pp. 3–4, 8–9 · ¶ 3, 6–7, 1103Law 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; its sub-rules must be read together so that a member who cannot be allotted accommodation is not denied HRA.
pp. 2–3, 5–8 · ¶ 4–5, 8–10In 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 shortage of accommodation or an employee’s lower seniority may affect allotment but cannot extinguish entitlement to HRA.
pp. 2–3, 5–8 · ¶ 4–5, 8–10The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2009.
pp. 2–3, 5–8 · ¶ 4–5, 8–10The Court also relied on subsequent Delhi High Court decisions, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar, and referred to the Supreme Court’s affirmance of Brijesh Kumar in Union of India v. Paramisivan M., Civil Appeal No. 4967/2023.
pp. 2–3, 5–8 · ¶ 4–5, 8–1004Reasoning
The respondents accepted that the petitioner had not been allotted Government accommodation during the claimed periods and had received only 25% HRA.
pp. 3–4, 7–8 · ¶ 6–11Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent authorities, the Court held that Rule 61 cannot be interpreted to make HRA depend on seniority or the availability of accommodation at a particular posting.
pp. 3–4, 7–8 · ¶ 6–11Since the petitioner received no accommodation, the withheld 5% could not lawfully be denied; the Court therefore found the claim for full HRA covered by the established precedent.
pp. 3–4, 7–8 · ¶ 6–1105Holding
The petition was allowed to the extent that the respondents were directed to pay the balance HRA due for the periods from 23 June 2021 and 7 May 2025, respectively, until full HRA was actually sanctioned.
p. 9 · ¶ 11–12The balance was to be released within three months; if unpaid within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.
p. 9 · ¶ 11–12The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
p. 9 · ¶ 11–12Original Court PDF
Gurpreet SinghvsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
