GITA MITTAL, J.

CM Nos.22182-181/2010 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C)No.8732/2010

1. The petitioner while posted with the Group Centre of the Central Reserve Police Force („CRPF? hereafter) was attached with the Directorate General of the CRPF at Delhi between 8th September, 2008 and 8th October, 2010. He was thereafter relieved from the Group Centre and permanently posted at Directorate General, CRPF, Delhi. The petitioner points out that by an order dated 7th October, 2009, he was granted permission to temporarily stay out of official accommodation on the condition that he shall not claim house rent, transport or any other allowance. However, such denial to other similarly placed persons was challenged in writ petitions which were allowed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition claiming entitlement to Transportation Allowance („TPT? hereafter) and House Rent Allowance („HRA? hereafter) in terms of the applicable rules.

2. The petitioner has premised his entitlement on the judgment passed by this court in WP(C)No.7582/2009 titled Jayasankar M.N. vs. Union of India and Others and other decisions of this court. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has made representations placing his entitlement and claim before the respondents on 9th October, 2010. The writ petition has been filed for the reason that the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner?s request or to pass an order thereon.

3. So far as Jayasankar M.N. vs. Union of India & Ors. was concerned, he had filed W.P.(C)No.7582/2009 for the reason that in March 1999, the petitioner was posted to the 94th Bn. but was attached to the Directorate EDP Cell at Delhi.

4. In June 2000, the petitioner was permanently attached and posted at the Directorate EDP Cell at Delhi. Since attachment and the posting was at Delhi, the respondents had no problem in releasing HRA and CCA to the petitioner as per Rules applicable; needless to state, Delhi being a metropolitan city, the two allowances were released as per rates applicable. In August 2003, the petitioner was issued a promotion-cum-posting order. He was promoted to the post of Inspector and was posted to the 126th Bn. After the promotion-cum-posting order was issued, on 28.8.2003, an office order was issued requiring the petitioner to continue to serve at the Directorate EDP Cell for a period of 6 months. 5. Under orders passed by the employer, the petitioner continued to remain at Delhi till 24.9.2007, when formal orders relieving him from Delhi were issued. But, HRA and CCA benefit was denied with effect from 10.9.2003. Various representations made by the petitioner were rejected necessitating the filing of the writ petition.

6. The court held as follows:-

“3. The issue raised by the writ petitioner is squarely covered, if not by the decision dated 15.5.1995 disposing of WP(C) No.308/1994, at least the decision dated 26.10.2003 disposing of WP(C) No.7391/2001.

4. The issue pertains to release of HRA and CCA to the petitioner.

5. Similar issue was raised in the two earlier writ petitions and the decision in both was in favour of the two writ petitioners.

6. Pertaining to the stand taken by the respondents that where the employee, on transfer-posting, is posted to a Unit outside Delhi, but remains attached to the Headquarters, no HRA or CCA is payable, in WP(C) No.7391/2001 it was observed as under:-

“We find no substance in the stand taken by respondent No.2 which represents his persistent though useless effort to resort to technicalities. It goes without saying that petitioner was attached to the Control Room of the Home Ministry under the orders of respondents and he continues to remain so attached till date. His transfer on paper to Rampur along with his 8th Bn. may be dictated by administrative convenience but that does not detract from the fact that he was admittedly discharging his duties at Delhi due to his attachment there. Therefore, if