Case at a Glance
A CISF member posted at Trivandrum Airport and later at IGI Airport, New Delhi, was not given government accommodation for long stretches, yet was paid House Rent Allowance at 25% instead of the full HRA he claimed at 30%. The respondents did not dispute the facts. Holding the case squarely covered by Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India, (2008) 05 DEL CK 0078 — where Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001 was read down and HRA was held to be a component of salary — and later decisions upheld by the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held him entitled to full HRA and called the 5% reduction untenable in law. Arrears must be paid within three months, failing which 6% simple interest applies.
The petitioner, a member of the Central Industrial Security Force, was not provided government accommodation from 6 May 2021 to July 2023 while posted at the CISF unit at Trivandrum Airport, nor from 16 June 2025 until HRA was sanctioned at IGI Airport, New Delhi. For these periods he was paid HRA at 25%. He argued that, accommodation not having been provided, he was entitled to HRA in lieu at 30% and that the 5% reduction had no justification. The respondents did not dispute that accommodation was not provided or that only 25% had been paid.
Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001 requires the Force to provide accommodation to supervisory officers in set ratios and entitles members to HRA in lieu, on the same basis as other Central Government employees, where accommodation is not available. The rate structure for HRA is governed by a Department of Expenditure Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017, to which the judgment refers.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the CISF pay a member less than full House Rent Allowance when it has not provided him government accommodation?
HRA is part of salary, not a concession
The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India, upheld by the Supreme Court, which held that HRA is not a concession but a component of salary and a condition of service meant to compensate for an amenity not provided; that entitlement cannot depend on the station of posting because transfer and posting are incidents of service; and that reading Rule 61 to deny HRA would make it discriminatory under Article 14, so the rule was read down. Circulars could not override the rule.
Later Division Benches followed the same line in Shaikh Abdul Khalik v. Director General, Brijesh Kumar v. DG, CISF and Anand Kumar v. Union of India: where the Force cannot provide accommodation and the member arranges it at his own expense, he cannot be denied full HRA. Brijesh Kumar was upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Paramisivan M., and review was dismissed; and in Ashish Sharma v. Union of India, decided with 109 other petitions on 21 May 2026, full HRA and arrears were directed without reduction. Finding the present case squarely covered, the Court held the petitioner entitled to full HRA for both periods and the 5% reduction “untenable in law.”
What the Court Actually Held
- HRA is a component of salary and a condition of service, not a concession; Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001 as read down in Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India governs.
- A CISF member who is not provided government accommodation is entitled to full HRA in lieu, irrespective of the station of posting.
- The 5% reduction in the petitioner’s HRA for the periods without accommodation was untenable in law.
- Respondents to release the balance HRA within three months, failing which simple interest at 6% per annum is payable until payment; writ petition disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms, for thousands of CAPF personnel, that HRA in lieu of unavailable quarters must be paid in full.
- It shows that the issue is settled by Supreme Court-affirmed precedent, so such claims can be decided quickly on admitted facts.
- The interest direction gives the order teeth if the Force delays payment.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For CAPF Personnel
- If you were not allotted government quarters, check whether your HRA was paid at the full rate for your station.
- Keep records of the periods without accommodation; admitted facts made this case straightforward.
For Counsel
- Rely on Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India and Union of India v. Paramisivan M.; the point is settled.
- Seek a time-bound direction with interest to secure prompt payment of arrears.
Key Takeaways
- No quarters means full HRA.
- HRA is part of salary, not a concession.
- 5% cut held untenable in law.
- Arrears in 3 months or 6% interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a CISF member entitled to HRA if no quarters are provided?
Yes. Following Jaspal Singh Mann, the Delhi High Court held that a member not provided government accommodation is entitled to full HRA in lieu.
Can HRA be reduced depending on where the member is posted?
No. The Court, following precedent, held that entitlement cannot depend on the station of posting because transfer and posting are incidents of service.
What happens if the arrears are not paid on time?
The respondents must pay within three months; otherwise simple interest at 6% per annum runs until payment.
Conclusion
The ruling applies settled law to admitted facts: where the Force cannot house its personnel, it must pay full House Rent Allowance. Short-paying HRA, the Court made clear, has no legal footing.
Practical takeaway: CAPF personnel denied quarters and paid reduced HRA can claim the balance as arrears, relying on Jaspal Singh Mann and the Supreme Court’s affirmation.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com