01Facts
The four petitioners, members of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), sought payment of the unpaid balance of House Rent Allowance (HRA) for periods during which they were posted at various airports, including IGI Airport, Delhi.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–7They alleged that no Government accommodation had been allotted to them during the relevant periods, yet they had received only 25% HRA rather than the full applicable rate.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–7Relying principally on Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., they sought directions for payment of the balance 5%.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–8The respondents did not dispute that accommodation had not been provided or that the claims were covered by the cited judgments.
p. 5 · ¶ 902Issues
i.1. Whether CISF personnel who were not allotted Government accommodation during the relevant posting periods were entitled to full applicable HRA, notwithstanding that only 25% had been paid.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 9–10ii.2. Whether allocation percentages, seniority, or the place of posting could justify withholding the balance HRA where accommodation was not provided.
pp. 6–10 · ¶ 11–1203Law Applied
Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for Force members and HRA in lieu of accommodation where the facility is unavailable; the provision was read down in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, to ensure that a member unable to obtain accommodation because of shortage or seniority is not denied HRA.
pp. 6–10 · ¶ 11–12Jaspal Singh Mann treats HRA as a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession, and holds that entitlement cannot depend on the station of posting or accommodation-allocation quotas; a contrary interpretation would be discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.
pp. 6–10 · ¶ 12The Court also relied on Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, Anand Kumar and Ashish Sharma, which reaffirmed entitlement to full HRA where accommodation was not provided, and noted that Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
pp. 5, 10–11 · ¶ 8, 13The Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 was also noted as fixing HRA percentages for Government servants in lieu of Government accommodation.
p. 11 · ¶ 1304Reasoning
The Court found that none of the petitioners had been allotted Government accommodation for the periods claimed and that the respondents did not contest the applicability of the cited precedents.
p. 5 · ¶ 9–10Applying Jaspal Singh Mann, it held that accommodation-allocation percentages or a member’s seniority may affect whether a house is allotted, but cannot extinguish the corresponding entitlement to HRA when accommodation is unavailable.
pp. 6–10 · ¶ 11–12The subsequent Division Bench decisions, including Ashish Sharma, confirmed that the petitioners’ claims were covered and that withholding the balance 5% was not legally sustainable.
pp. 10–11 · ¶ 13–1405Holding
The Court held that all four petitioners were entitled to full applicable HRA for their respective claimed periods, and that the 5% reduction was untenable in law.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 14It directed the respondents to release the balance HRA within three months; if payment was not made within that period, the petitioners would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
p. 12 · ¶ 14–15Original Court PDF
Jyoti Swaroop PathakvsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
