01Facts
The petitioner, a CISF member posted at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation from August 2024 to 17 October 2026.
p. 1, 3He received 25% HRA and sought the remaining 5%, claiming entitlement to full HRA for that period.
p. 1, 3The respondents did not dispute that accommodation had not been provided or that only 25% HRA had been paid.
p. 3 · ¶ 6The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
p. 1 · ¶ 302Issues
i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation was entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the respondents’ payment of only 25%.
p. 1, 3 · ¶ 3, 6–7ii.2. Whether the respondents could reduce the petitioner’s HRA by 5% for the period in question.
p. 9 · ¶ 1103Law Applied
Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 requires provision of accommodation in the prescribed ratios and, where accommodation is unavailable, entitlement to HRA in lieu thereof as applicable to other Central Government employees.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–9In 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 that a CISF member denied accommodation because of shortage or seniority cannot also be denied HRA; Rule 61 must be read to avoid an arbitrary or discriminatory result under Article 14.
pp. 2, 5–7 · ¶ 4, 8–9The Court also relied on subsequent Delhi High Court decisions and noted that Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
p. 3, 8 · ¶ 10It further referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 fixing HRA percentages payable in lieu of Government accommodation.
p. 8 · ¶ 1004Reasoning
The petitioner’s lack of accommodation during the claimed period was undisputed, as was the payment of only 25% HRA.
p. 3 · ¶ 6–7Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that the unavailability of accommodation—whether due to shortage or seniority—does not justify withholding HRA in lieu of it.
pp. 4–8 · ¶ 8–10Since the petitioner had not been allotted Government accommodation, the reduction of 5% from his HRA was inconsistent with the governing rule as interpreted in those authorities.
p. 9 · ¶ 1105Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the period from August 2024 to 17 October 2026 and that the 5% reduction was legally untenable.
p. 9 · ¶ 11It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was not made within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.
p. 9 · ¶ 11–12The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
p. 9 · ¶ 11–12Original Court PDF
Ajeet Kumar SharmavsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
