Four CISF Personnel Get Full HRA For Periods Without Government Quarters, As Delhi HC Orders 5% Arrears Within 3 Months

In brief

The question

1. Whether CISF personnel who were not allotted government accommodation during the relevant posting periods were entitled to full HRA, rather than the 25% already paid.

The court held

The Court held that each petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the periods claimed and that the 5% reduction was legally untenable.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was not made within that period, the petitioners would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.

The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

Four CISF personnel sought the unpaid balance of 5% HRA for specified periods when posted at CISF units in Pune, New Delhi, Raipur and Mumbai.

¶ 3–9, 10 · pp. 3–6

They alleged that they had not been allotted government accommodation, but had received only 25% HRA instead of the full 30% claimed.

¶ 3–9, 10 · pp. 3–6

The Union did not dispute the non-allotment of accommodation or that the claims were covered by the precedents relied on by the petitioners.

¶ 3–9, 10 · pp. 3–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether CISF personnel who were not allotted government accommodation during the relevant posting periods were entitled to full HRA, rather than the 25% already paid.

¶ 9–10, 13–14 · pp. 5–6, 11–12

ii.2. Whether the respondents could withhold the balance 5% HRA on the basis of the allocation or availability of accommodation.

¶ 11–13 · pp. 6–11

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 requires accommodation to be provided in the prescribed categories and provides for HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable.

¶ 7, 11–12 · pp. 4, 6–10

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 that lack of accommodation, including because of seniority or limited availability, does not disentitle a CISF member to HRA in lieu; Rule 61 must be read accordingly to avoid discriminatory application.

¶ 7, 11–12 · pp. 4, 6–10

The Court also relied on subsequent decisions applying that principle, including Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, Anand Kumar and Ashish Sharma, and referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 concerning HRA payable in lieu of government accommodation.

¶ 8, 13 · p. 5, 11

04Reasoning

The respondents did not contest that the petitioners had received no government accommodation during the claimed periods, nor that the cited decisions covered their cases.

¶ 9 · p. 5

Applying Jaspal Singh Mann and the subsequent decisions, the Court held that the entitlement to HRA could not depend on the station of posting or on accommodation availability or seniority.

¶ 10–14 · pp. 5–12

Since only 25% had been paid, withholding the balance 5% was inconsistent with the governing principle that HRA must follow when accommodation is not provided.

¶ 10–14 · pp. 5–12

05Holding

The Court held that each petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the periods claimed and that the 5% reduction was legally untenable.

¶ 14–15 · p. 12

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was not made within that period, the petitioners would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.

¶ 14–15 · p. 12

The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

¶ 14–15 · p. 12

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF