Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Siyad M – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:
"a.) lssue a writ mandamus directing the respondent to grant full HRA w.e.f. 03.07.2021;
b.) Pass a writ of Certiorari for quashing and set aside the office order dated 03.02.2023 vide which recovery of 5% of HRA allowance which had been paid to the petitioner for first six months of his tenure (qua petitioner only);
c.) Issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2023of the respondents through which they rejected the plea of the petitioner for grant of full HRA 27% w.e.f. 01.01.2021 to till date as the same is illegal and ultra-virus to the constitution of India;
d.) Pass a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant Full HRA to the petitioner whenever the respondents are unable to give family accommodation at the place of posting;
e.) Direct the respondents to pay entire arrears of 5% along with 18% interest from the date it became due and payable or w.e.f. 03.07.2021 (if recovery made) otherwise from 01.01.2022;
f.) To direct the respondents to pay cost of this litigation."
2. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the issues r
The court ruled that under CISF Rules, when accommodation is unavailable, full HRA must be granted, and existing judgments support the petitioner's claim for arrears and interest.
A petition challenging a dismissal for lack of cause cannot proceed without a prior specific order invoked, allowing withdrawal to pursue direct challenges.
Interpretation of Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and the entitlement of employees to full House Rent Allowance based on previous court judgments.
The court upheld that a retired officer could not claim Housing Rent Allowance past the effective date of new policy applicable only to active officers, following prior withdrawals of legal remedies.
Personnel are entitled to full house rent and transport allowances when family accommodations are not provided, ensuring equal treatment under employment rules.
Recovery of excess HRA impermissible from Class III/IV employees without fault, when paid per employer's order later cancelled; authorities responsible for erroneous disbursement cannot recover retro....
Procedural fairness and the requirement for a Show Cause Notice before taking adverse action were central to the court's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
