CISF Officer Without Government Housing Wins Full HRA For 2019–21 As Delhi HC Orders 5% Arrears

In brief

The question

1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided government accommodation during the relevant posting was entitled to full HRA, without a 5% reduction.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 30 August 2019 to 22 July 2021 and that the 5% reduction was legally untenable.

It also directed

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.

01Facts

The petitioner, a CISF member posted at the CISF Unit at DMRC, New Delhi, from 30 August 2019 to 22 July 2021, was not provided government accommodation during that period.

p. 1, 3

He received 25% HRA and sought the balance 5%, claiming entitlement to full HRA at the applicable rate.

p. 1, 3

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

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided government accommodation during the relevant posting was entitled to full HRA, without a 5% reduction.

p. 3, 8

ii.2. Whether the respondents could reduce the petitioner’s HRA despite the principles laid down in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors. and subsequent decisions.

p. 2, 3, 7

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for members of the Force and HRA in lieu of accommodation where that facility is unavailable.

p. 4, 5

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 service remuneration, not a concession, and that a member who cannot be allotted accommodation—including because of seniority or limited availability—cannot for that reason be denied HRA in lieu thereof; an interpretation producing such denial would be discriminatory and inconsistent with Article 14.

p. 4, 5, 6, 7

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.

p. 7

Provisions 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 was not allotted government accommodation during the relevant period, and the respondents did not contest that fact.

p. 3

Under Rule 61, the absence of accommodation entitled him to HRA in lieu; accommodation-allocation limits or other circumstances could not justify withholding part of that allowance.

p. 4, 8

The subsequent decisions cited by the Court confirmed that the entitlement was to full HRA, and the respondents’ 5% reduction was therefore inconsistent with the applicable law.

p. 4, 8

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 30 August 2019 to 22 July 2021 and that the 5% reduction was legally untenable.

p. 8

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.

p. 8

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

p. 9

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF