CISF Personnel Not Allotted Government Housing Must Get Full HRA: Delhi HC Orders 5% Balance For Three

In brief

The question

1. Whether CISF personnel who were not allotted Government accommodation during the relevant posting periods were entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding that only 25% had been paid.

The court held

The Court held that all three petitioners were entitled to full HRA for the periods claimed and that the 5% reduction was legally untenable.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to pay the outstanding HRA within three months; if payment was not made within that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would accrue until payment.

The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The three petitioners, members of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), sought payment of the unpaid 5% of House Rent Allowance (HRA) for specified periods when they were posted at CISF units in Trichy, Bengaluru, Bhopal and New Delhi.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–7

They contended that they had not been provided Government accommodation and had received only 25% HRA instead of the full applicable allowance.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–7

The respondents did not dispute the non-allotment of accommodation or that the petitioners’ claims were covered by the precedents relied upon.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether CISF personnel who were not allotted Government accommodation during the relevant posting periods were entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding that only 25% had been paid.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–9

ii.2. Whether the respondents could withhold the balance 5% of HRA on the basis of the accommodation-allotment scheme under Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001.

pp. 6–9 · ¶ 11–12

03Law Applied

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

pp. 6–9 · ¶ 11–12

The Delhi High Court in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, read the Rule to mean that a member who is not allotted accommodation—including because of seniority or limited availability—cannot thereby be denied HRA.

pp. 6–9 · ¶ 11–12

HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession; an interpretation that makes entitlement depend arbitrarily on posting or accommodation availability would be discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.

pp. 6–9 · ¶ 11–12

The Court also relied on subsequent decisions applying that principle, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, Anand Kumar and Ashish Sharma, and noted the Supreme Court’s affirmance of Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar.

pp. 4–5, 10–11 · ¶ 8, 13

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ postings and the relevant periods were undisputed, as was the fact that they had not received Government accommodation.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that CISF accommodation-allotment limits could not extinguish the corresponding entitlement to HRA.

pp. 5–6, 10–11 · ¶ 10, 13–14

Because the petitioners had been paid only 25% despite receiving no accommodation, withholding the balance 5% was inconsistent with Rule 61 as interpreted and with the governing precedents.

pp. 5–6, 10–11 · ¶ 10, 13–14

05Holding

The Court held that all three petitioners were entitled to full HRA for the periods claimed and that the 5% reduction was legally untenable.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 14

It directed the respondents to pay the outstanding HRA within three months; if payment was not made within that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would accrue until payment.

p. 11 · ¶ 14–15

The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

p. 11 · ¶ 14–15

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF