Delhi HC Orders Full HRA For CISF Member Without Government Accommodation, Says 5% Cut Is Unlawful

In brief

The question

1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation during the relevant posting periods was entitled to full HRA, without a 5% reduction.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 1 October 2020 to October 2022 and 26 June 2024 to 15 April 2026.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner, a CISF member, was posted at CISF Units at ASG Dehradun from 1 October 2020 to October 2022 and IGI Airport, New Delhi, from 26 June 2024 to 15 April 2026.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–7

He was not provided Government accommodation during either period and had received only 25% HRA. The respondents did not dispute the non-allotment of accommodation or the 25% payment.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

He sought payment of the remaining 5%, relying on prior Division Bench decisions holding that a CISF member denied accommodation is entitled to HRA in lieu thereof.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 3–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation during the relevant posting periods was entitled to full HRA, without a 5% reduction.

p. 1, 3 · ¶ 3, 6–7

ii.2. Whether the respondents should be directed to pay the balance HRA for those periods.

p. 9 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

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

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8

In 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, not a concession; lack of accommodation, including due to seniority or limited availability, does not justify denying HRA.

pp. 4–8 · ¶ 8–9

The Court noted that this approach was followed in subsequent Division Bench decisions and that Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court. It also referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable in lieu of Government accommodation.

p. 8 · ¶ 10

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s case fell within the principle in Jaspal Singh Mann: because he was not allotted accommodation, he could not be denied the corresponding HRA.

pp. 3–4, 8–9 · ¶ 7–11

The Court considered the prior decisions directly applicable and found no basis for reducing the petitioner’s HRA by 5%. Accordingly, the respondents’ failure to provide accommodation did not defeat the petitioner’s claim to full HRA for either posting period.

pp. 3–4, 8–9 · ¶ 7–11