CISF personnel not allotted government accommodation are entitled to full HRA.

The petitioner, a CISF member, was posted at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi, from 7 June 2022 to 28 February 2025 and was not allotted Government accommodation during that period.

He received HRA at 25%, rather than the claimed full rate of 30%, and sought payment of the balance 5%. The respondents did not dispute either the non-allotment of accommodation or the rate paid.

1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation during the relevant posting was entitled to full HRA, rather than 25% HRA, for the period claimed

2. Whether the 5% reduction in HRA could be sustained under Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001

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 it is unavailable; the provision was read to mean that an officer who cannot be allotted accommodation, including because of seniority or shortage, cannot thereby be denied HRA.

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, and read Rule 61 to prevent denial of HRA where accommodation is not provided; the Supreme Court upheld that judgment.

The Court also relied on Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, Anand Kumar and Ashish Sharma, which applied the principle that full HRA is payable when accommodation is not provided, and noted that Brijesh Kumar was upheld in Union of India v. Paramisivan M., Civil Appeal No. 4967/2023.

The Court further referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable in lieu of Government accommodation.

The petitioner’s claim fell within the principle in Jaspal Singh Mann: Rule 61 cannot be applied to deny HRA to a Force member who is not allotted accommodation.

The respondents conceded that the petitioner had received no Government accommodation during the relevant period and had been paid only 25% HRA.

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that the absence of accommodation entitled the petitioner to full HRA; the 5% reduction was therefore legally untenable.

It 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.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.