Delhi HC Orders Full HRA For CISF Member Without Government Housing, Including The Balance 5% From August 2023

In brief

The question

Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the respondents’ payment of only 25%.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the period from 3 August 2023 until actual sanction and realization of the full amount, and that the 5% reduction was unlawful.

It also directed

The respondents were directed 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.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner, a CISF member posted at CISF Unit, Samadhi Sthal, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation from 3 August 2023 onward.

pp. 1, 3–4

The respondents did not dispute that only 25% HRA had been paid, and the petitioner sought the remaining 5% to bring his HRA to the full applicable rate.

pp. 1, 3–4

He relied on Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors. and subsequent decisions holding that HRA is payable when accommodation is not provided.

pp. 2–3

The Union was unable to dispute the non-provision of accommodation or the 25% payment.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the respondents’ payment of only 25%.

pp. 3–4, 9

ii.Whether the respondents’ reduction of the petitioner’s HRA by 5% was legally sustainable.

p. 9

03Law Applied

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

pp. 4–5

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; where accommodation is unavailable or not allotted, HRA must follow, and Rule 61 must be read accordingly to avoid an arbitrary or discriminatory result.

pp. 4–8

The Court noted that this approach had been followed in Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar and Anand Kumar, and that Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

p. 3, 8

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

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s case fell within the principle in Jaspal Singh Mann: he had not been provided Government accommodation, and the respondents did not contest that fact or the partial payment of HRA.

pp. 3–4

Applying Rule 61 as interpreted in that decision, the Court held that a member cannot be denied full HRA merely because accommodation is unavailable; a reduction based on the allocation of accommodation would create an impermissible distinction between members who are and are not allotted housing.

pp. 4–8

The subsequent decisions cited by the petitioner reinforced that conclusion.

p. 8

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the period from 3 August 2023 until actual sanction and realization of the full amount, and that the 5% reduction was unlawful.

p. 9

The respondents were directed to pay the balance HRA within three months.

p. 9

If payment was not made within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.

p. 9

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

p. 9

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF