CISF Personnel Not Provided Government Accommodation Cannot Be Denied Full HRA: Delhi High Court
The Court said that the shortage of accommodation or low seniority may justify non-allotment but not curtailment of HRA; directed release of balance with 6% interest on default.
The Delhi High Court has held that a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) who is not provided Government accommodation is entitled to full House Rent Allowance (HRA), and that deducting 5% from the amount is untenable in law. The Court allowed a CISF personnel’s writ petition for the balance HRA for his posting at the IGI Airport unit, New Delhi.
The Court reiterated that HRA is a component of salary and compensates an employee for accommodation not provided. Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 allocates accommodation in the ratio of 45% for married and 55% for unmarried supervisory officers. The Court said that a person who does not get accommodation because of shortage or low seniority cannot also be denied HRA.
A Division Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and Justice Gurvinder Pal Singh observed, while referring to Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) observed, “…it is clear from a reading of the judgment that owing to low seniority of the member of the Force, facility of accommodation may not be available to him, however, he cannot be deprived of HRA in lieu thereof. As rightly placed by counsel for the Petitioner, post the judgment in Jaspal Singh Mann (supra), several Division Benches of this Court have held that where Respondents are unable to provide accommodation and member of the Force hires an accommodation at his own expense, he cannot be denied the benefit of full HRA…”.
Advocate P. Sureshan appeared for the petitioner and Satyam Pahal, SPC appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, posted at CISF Unit, IGI Airport, from June 13, 2022 to December 12, 2024, was not allotted Government accommodation. He claimed HRA at 30%, but only 25% had been disbursed, and he sought the balance 5% under Article 226 of the Constitution. His prayer also sought full HRA for future postings.
His counsel relied on Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann and on later Division Bench rulings in Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar and Anand Kumar. The Union’s counsel could not dispute that no accommodation was provided or that only 25% had been paid.
The Court held the case covered by Jaspal Singh Mann, where the judgment read Rule 61 to mean that a person may not be entitled to family accommodation because of lower seniority or the percentage distribution, but in that event HRA must follow, since HRA “is not in the nature of a concession” and the allowance cannot depend on the station of posting. The Court noted that the Supreme Court upheld Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar (Union of India v. Paramisivan M., Civil Appeal No. 4967/2023), and dismissed the review in Paramisivan M. It also recalled that on May 21, 2026, in Ashish Sharma v. Union of India along with 109 other petitions, the Respondents were directed to grant full HRA and release arrears without reduction.
Holding the reduction untenable, the Court directed the Respondents to release the balance HRA within three months. If the arrears are not paid within that period, the petitioner will be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment. The Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Gurvinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9988-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate P. Sureshan.
Respondent: Special Central Government Counsel Satyam Pahal with Advocate Sarthak Rana, Government Pleader, along with AC J.P. Singh and SI Rohtas, CISF.