House Rent Allowance entitlements are mandatory under the relevant rule when free accommodation is not provided to officers.

C O M M O N O R D E R

The petitioner in W.P.No.6324 of 2013 is the 'wife' and the petitioner in W.P.No.6325 of 2013 is the 'husband'. Both the petitioners have joined the Central Industrial Security Force as Lady Sub-Inspector/Executive and Sub-Inspector/Executive, respectively, on 8/11/2003 at Ahmedabad. Later, they were transferred from Ahmedabad to CISF Unit, ASG, Chennai and reported to duty on 20/12/2010. They gave representations for 'out-living', i.e., to reside outside the premises of ASG, Chennai in a rented house and also to provide House Rent Allowance.

2. According to the respondents, applications/representation of the petitioners were under consideration and they would be granted HRA, as and when they are entitled to in accordance with seniority. In the meanwhile, the respondents permitted the petitioners to stay outside the premises of ASG, Chennai with their infant aged 1 ½ years. The petitioners were not provided HRA but FAA (Family Accommodation Allowance). The petitioners filed the instant writ petitions seeking HRA from December

2010 to May 2012.

3. Heard Mr.T.N.Sugesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that HRA ought to have been granted by the respondents in accordance with Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as CISF Rules), as they were entitled to HRA, since they were staying in a rented accommodation outside the premises of ASG, Chennai and ASG Chennai did not provide family accommodation.

5. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled for HRA, since HRA would be sanctioned on the basis of seniority. HRA was granted to 45% of the posted strength in each rank, as per the directions of AAI Management.

However, the petitioners were granted HRA after May, 2012, as they fell within the 45% of the posted strength. Further, since both the petitioners were transferred to New Delhi with effect from 21/2/2013 and the petitioners are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, writ petitions have to be dismissed as not maintainable.

6. The following facts are not disputed:-

(i). Both the writ petitioners were not given HRA till 29/3/2012.

According to the respondents, both the petitioners were paid HRA with effect from 29/3/2012.

(ii). ASG, Chennai did not have family accommodation and only barracks were available and hence, they were given Family Accommodation Allowance (FAA) as they were staying in a private rented accommodation.

(iii). The petitioners had given an undertaking that they intended to stay outside the ASG Chennai premises because they had to take care of their infant child of 1 ½ years.

7. The issue relates to payment of HRA from December 2010 to May

2012 during which time, the petitioners were working in CISF, AIG, Chennai. Though the petitioners were working at Delhi, when the writ petitions are filed, that does not mean that this Court has no jurisdiction. The prayer sought in the writ petitions are for payment of HRA which was denied to them during the period while they were working in Chennai, as such the writ petitions are maintainable.

8. It is relevant to extract Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act , 1968, and the same reads thus:-

Free accommodation:- (1) Normally, the undertaking where the Force has been deputed shall provide accommodation in the township itself to all supervisory officers and at the rate of 45 per cent married and 55 per cent unmarried or as amended by the Central Government from time to time, to the enrolled members of the Force.

(2). The accommodation to the enrolled member of the Force shall be rent free but where such facilities are not available they shall get house rent allowance i