CISF Personnel Without Government Accommodation Must Get Full HRA, Delhi HC Orders Balance 5% Arrears Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

1. Whether CISF personnel who were not allotted Government accommodation during the periods in question were entitled to full HRA, rather than the 25% already paid.

The court held

The Court held that each petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the periods specified in the judgment, making the reduction of 5% untenable in law.

It also directed

The respondents were directed to pay 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.

01Facts

The four petitioners, members of the CISF, sought payment of the unpaid 5% of HRA for specified periods when they were posted at airports and were not allotted Government accommodation.

pp. 3–6, paras 3–8

They submitted that only 25% HRA had been paid, although they were entitled to 30%, and relied on earlier decisions interpreting Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (“2001 Rules”).

pp. 3–6, paras 3–8

The respondents did not dispute that accommodation had not been allotted during the periods claimed or that the petitioners’ cases were covered by the cited judgments.

p. 5, para 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether CISF personnel who were not allotted Government accommodation during the periods in question were entitled to full HRA, rather than the 25% already paid.

pp. 3–6, paras 3–10

ii.2. Whether the respondents could withhold the balance 5% HRA by relying on limits or conditions governing the availability or distribution of accommodation.

pp. 6–10, paras 11–13

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the 2001 Rules, read as a whole, provides for accommodation for CISF personnel and HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable; the rule cannot be interpreted to deny both accommodation and HRA because of a member’s seniority or the station of posting.

pp. 6–10, paras 11–12

HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession.

p. 6, para 11

In Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, the Delhi High Court read down Rule 61 to prevent such denial and held that personnel not allotted accommodation are entitled to HRA under Central Government norms; the Supreme Court upheld that judgment.

pp. 4–5, 8–10, paras 7–8, 11–13

The Court also relied on Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, Anand Kumar and Ashish Sharma, which reaffirmed that entitlement to HRA does not depend on the availability of accommodation or a personnel member’s seniority.

pp. 5, 10–11, paras 8, 13

A contrary interpretation would be discriminatory and offend Article 14 of the Constitution.

pp. 9–10, para 12

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioners had not been allotted Government accommodation during the periods claimed and that the respondents did not dispute the applicability of the cited authorities.

pp. 5–6, paras 9–10

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, it held that accommodation limits may govern allocation of available housing but cannot extinguish the entitlement to HRA when accommodation is not provided.

pp. 6–11, paras 10–13

The denial of the balance 5% was therefore inconsistent with Rule 61 as interpreted by the Court and with the principle of equal treatment under Article 14.

pp. 6–11, paras 10–13