CISF Petitioners Without Rent-Free Accommodation To Receive 5% Balance HRA, With 6% Interest If Unpaid Within Three Months: Delhi HC

The petitioners, members of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), were posted in different cities. For the periods in question, they were not provided rent-free accommodation but received only 25% HRA, and sought payment of the remaining 5% of the 30% HRA claimed as due.

The petitions were heard together because they raised an identical issue. The respondents relied on Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, but the Court noted that the issue had already been addressed in prior decisions.

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, was considered in light of the principle established in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649: where rent-free accommodation is not allotted to a member of the Force, full HRA in lieu of that accommodation must follow, and Rule 61 must be read accordingly.

The Court also relied on decisions applying that principle, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik and Another v. Director General and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7525; Brijesh Kumar v. Director General, CISF, W.P.(C) 4839/2019 (18 December 2019); and Anand Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 6720/2016 (30 August 2017). It noted that Jaspal Singh Mann had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and that Brijesh Kumar had been upheld in Union of India and Ors. v. Paramisivan M., Civil Appeal No. 4967/2023. The Court also referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 and the Division Bench decision in Ashish Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 8154/2024 (21 May 2026), which directed reimbursement of the balance 5% HRA.

The Court found that the petitioners’ claims fell within the principle laid down in Jaspal Singh Mann: because rent-free accommodation had not been provided during the relevant periods, the petitioners were entitled to full HRA in lieu of it.

The respondents’ reliance on Rule 61 did not displace that established interpretation, which had been consistently applied and upheld in subsequent decisions. Accordingly, the petitioners were entitled to the unpaid balance of HRA.

If payment was not made within that period, the amounts would carry interest at 6% per annum until payment. The petitions were disposed of on those terms, and pending applications for exemption and interim relief were also disposed of.