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.

Headnote:(A) CISF Rules, 2001 - Sub-rule 2 of Rule 61 - House Rent Allowance (HRA) - Petition filed challenging denial of HRA from 30th May 2016 to 30th April 2018 - Court ruled that previous judgments granted full HRA @24% and additional HRA must be paid when family accommodation is not provided. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Res Integra - The issue raised is established by prior judgments, with similar relief granted in several cases. (Paras 6, 10)

(C) Jurisdiction of the Court - The Court cannot allow the respondents additional time when the matter is covered by existing judgments. (Paras 2, 3)

Facts of the case:
The appellant contested the denial of full HRA by the respondents, which had impacted the petitioner's financial situation due to lack of provided family accommodation. The petitioner asserts rights to full HRA based on several legal precedents.

Findings of Court:
The petition was granted relief ordering the respondents to pay the appropriate HRA along with interest, confirming the inconsistency in the reduced HRA provided.

Issues: The main issues addressed were regarding the validity of denying full HRA and the respondents' obligation under existing law to compensate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that where accommodation is not provided, HRA should be fully granted, reiterating the binding nature of its previous judgments.

Result: Writ petition disposed of, with directions for payment of HRA.

Table of Content
1. final disposition and directives for payment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 12)
2. challenge to hra denial and claim for arrears. (Para 4)
3. arguments for entitlement to full hra under rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's reasoning based on prior judgments. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

Present matter has been heard by way of video conferencing.

C.M.No.663/2022

1. Present application has been filed for enlargement of time for filing of counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Even on the last date of hearing, this Court was not inclined to grant time to the respondents to file a counter-affidavit, as the matter was squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Surender Pal Singh vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home & Ors., W.P.(C) No.9853/2021.

2. Consequently, the prayer for additional time to file the counter-affidavit is declined.

3. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

W.P.(C) No.13442/2021

4. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26th October 2017 vide which request of Petitioner for grant of HRA/allotment of family accommodation was declined. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to grant full House Rent Allowance [HRA] to the Petitioner @24% of Basic Pay w.e.f. 30th May 2016 till 30th June 2017 and HRA @ 5% of Basic Pay for the period w.e.f. 01st July 2017 to 30th April 2018. Petitioner seeks entire arrears of HRA along with 18% interest from the date it become due and payable.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was not given any HRA from 30th May 2016 to 30th June 2017 and was given a reduced HRA @ 19% of Basic Pay w.e.f. 01st July 2017 to 30th April 2018 by the Respondents. He points out that w.e.f. 01st May 2018, full HRA @ 24% of the basic pay was rightly paid to the Petitioner.

6. He states that the issue is no more res-integra as this Court vide numerous judgments has granted full HRA @ 24% of basic pay to similarly situated persons. He states that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 23rd May 2008 of the Division Bench of this Court in Inspector (Ex.) Jaspal Singh Mann vs. Union of India & Ors., 2009 ILR 1 Delhi 165 which has been followed by this Court in several other writ petitions.

7. He relies on the judgment dated 30th August, 2017 passed in W.P. (C) 6720/2016 titled Anand Kumar v. Union of India, whereby this Court relied on the judgment in the case of Inspector (Ex.) Jaspal Singh Mann (supra) and granted the HRA even when outliving permission had been rejected by the respondent department. Therefore, he states that the stand of the respondent department that neither Petitioner sought nor he was granted the outliving permission and thus cannot be granted HRA is wrong, erroneous and bad in law.

8. He submits that Sub-rule 2 of Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001 is unambiguous inasmuch as, it says that those who cannot be provided with free accommodation shall be provided HRA in lieu thereof.

9. He states that since the respondents were unable to provide family accommodation to the Petitioner when he was posted at IPGCL, he had no choice but to hire family accommodation at his own expense and stay outside the unit with his family.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue of grant of the additional HRA @ 5% has been decided by this Court by way of its judgment dated 08th September 2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.9853/2021 titled Surender Pal Singh (supra). The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:

1. The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the office order dated 31st August, 2017 issued by the Respondents for giving reduced HRA to CISF personnel. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to pay balance 5% HRA from July, 2017 to January, 2021 by following the orders passed by this