Delhi HC Orders Full HRA For CISF Officer Not Allotted Government Housing, Rejecting 5% Cut

The petitioner, a CISF member posted at CISF units at DMRC, New Delhi, and IGI Airport, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation during 15 August 2020–2 June 2022 and from 8 May 2025 onward.

The respondents did not dispute the non-allotment of accommodation or that only 25% HRA had been paid.

The petitioner sought the unpaid balance, contending that he was entitled to full HRA under Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (“2001 Rules”) and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors.

Rule 61 of the 2001 Rules provides for accommodation for CISF personnel and HRA in lieu of accommodation where such facilities are unavailable;

the Delhi High Court in Jaspal Singh Mann interpreted the Rule to mean that personnel not allotted accommodation—including because of seniority or accommodation shortages—cannot thereby be denied HRA, and read the Rule down to avoid arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court also relied on Shaikh Abdul Khalik v. Director General, Brijesh Kumar v. Director General, CISF, and Anand Kumar v. Union of India, which applied the principle that HRA must follow where accommodation is not provided;

it noted that Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Court further referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable to Government servants in lieu of Government accommodation.

The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner had received no Government accommodation during the relevant periods and that only 25% HRA had been disbursed.

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that the absence of accommodation triggers entitlement to HRA in lieu thereof; the amount cannot be reduced on the basis of the member’s posting or eligibility for accommodation.

The petitioner’s claim was therefore squarely covered by those authorities, making the 5% reduction legally untenable.

It directed the respondents to release 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.