Delhi HC Orders Full HRA, Including 5% Balance, For CISF Member Without Government Accommodation At IGI Airport In 2022–24

In brief

The question

1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation was entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding any reduction of 5%.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for 25 May 2022 to 18 July 2024.

It also directed

The Court directed the respondents to pay the balance amount 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 the CISF Unit at IGI Airport, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation from 25 May 2022 to 18 July 2024.

pp. 1–3

He received 25% HRA and sought the remaining 5%, contending that he was entitled to full HRA in lieu of accommodation.

pp. 1–3

The respondents did not dispute either the non-allotment of accommodation or the payment of only 25% HRA for the relevant period.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation was entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding any reduction of 5%.

p. 3, 9

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the balance HRA for the period from 25 May 2022 to 18 July 2024.

p. 3, 9

03Law Applied

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

p. 2

In Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, the Delhi High Court read Rule 61 to mean that although accommodation may be allocated according to prescribed categories or seniority, a member who is not provided accommodation cannot thereby be denied HRA; a contrary interpretation would be discriminatory and contrary to Article 14.

pp. 4–7

The Court noted that this principle 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 to Government servants in lieu of Government accommodation.

p. 8

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s non-allotment of accommodation during the claimed period was undisputed.

pp. 3–4

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that lack of accommodation—whether due to availability or allocation criteria—did not justify withholding part of the HRA payable in lieu of it.

pp. 8–9

The petitioner’s claim was therefore covered by the established rule, and the 5% reduction was legally untenable.

pp. 8–9