Allowed

Shah Md. Khan v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/1091/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed writ petitions filed by CISF personnel seeking House Rent Allowance. Relying on prior judgments, the court ruled that if no official married accommodation is provided, HRA must be paid for the period of outdoor residence permission, subject to adjustment of monitory compensation already received, within four months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus issued directing respondents to pay HRA within four months, adjusted for Rule 61 compensation, with 8% simple interest if delayed.

Shah Md. Khan Vs Union of India & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:16.10.2024 15:47 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

¶3

versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Ms. Sarita Arora, Advocate for Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate for respondent-UOI

¶5

(v) W.P.(C) 1092/2016 & C.Ms.4752-53/2016

¶6

DUSHYANT SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar and Mr. V.P. S. Charak, Advocates for respondent-UOI

¶9

(vi)W.P.(C) 1259/2016 & C.Ms.5507-08/2016

¶10

NUTAN KUMARI Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate

¶11

versus

¶12

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Ms. Sarita Arora, Advocate for Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate for respondent-UOI

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶15

ORDER

¶16

J? o/o 16.02.2016

¶17

The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners

¶18

praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.2-CISFto pay them House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'HRA'), to

¶19

W.P.(C) 1079/2016&connectedmatters

¶20

Page 2 of5

¶21

which they are legitimately entitled.

¶22

The petitioners herein, who are enrolled as members of the respondent N0.2-CISF, had approached the respondent No.2 for permission to live out of campus with family, which was duly granted. None of the petitioners herein were provided with the Government Accommodation (Married).

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the Issue raised here Is no longer res integra as several other petitions for the same relief have been filed In this Court from time to time. Including a batch of matters, lead matter being W.P.(C) 5407/2015 entitled Aviilt Das Vs. Union of India & Ors.. that were allowed by a Coordinate Bench vide Judgment dated 27^^ May, 2015. In the said petitions, the respondent No.2-CISF's position was that since the petitioners had been provided with barrack accommodation, but were later permittedto leave the said premises,they would not be entitled to claim HRA. Turning down the respondent's plea and relying upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court In W.P.(C) 1712/2006 entitled Insoct./Exe Jasoal Slnoh Mann Vg ^ Qrs. decided on 23'-'^ May, 2008, the Division Bench had Issued a writ of Mandamusto the respondent-CISFthat If no official accommodationwas made available to the petitioners In the said

¶24

W.P.(C) 1079/2016&connectedmatters

¶25

Page 3of 5

¶26

case, then they would be paid HRA for the period for which outdoor residence permission was granted to them.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitionerssubmits that prior to the judgment dated May, 2015, another batch of matters that had raised the same issue, was allowed on 7'^'^ April, 2015, by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 3340/2015 entitled Jamila Hassina V<;. Union of India &Ors. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had preferred Special Leave Petition No.15026/2015 (later on converted into Special Leave Petition (Civil) 24592/2015) before the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed at the stage of admission on 24'^'^ August, 2015. It is thus submitted that petitionersare entitled to the same relief, as has been granted to other similarly placed petitioners in terms of the judgment dated 7'^'' April, 2015, as it has since attainedfinality.

¶28

In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not interfered in the judgment dated 7'^ April, 2015 pronounced by the Division Bench in the case of Jamila Hassina fsuora^ and vide order dated 24'"^ August, 2015, Special Leave Petition (Civil) 24592/2015,has been dismissed, we are of the opinion that the principle of law raised in the said petitions has been conclusivelydecided and it should apply in rem to all similarly placed personnel in the CISF,

¶29

W.P.(C) 1079/2016&connectedmatters

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

including the petitioners herein.

¶32

Accordingly, the present writ petitions and the applications are allowed by issuing a writ of Mandamus to the respondents that the petitioners would be paid HRA for the period for which they were granted outdoor residence permission, if no official accommodation (married) has been made available to them. While making the payment of HRA, the monetary compensation paid to the petitioners in terms of sub-Rule3 of Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001, shall be duly adjusted. The said payment shall be released to the petitioners within a period of four months from today. If the said amount is not reieased to the petitioners within the stipulated timeline, then the same shall be paid by the respondents along with simple interest @8% per annum after the expiry of four months, till the date of payment.

¶33

The petitions are disposed of along with the pending applications. 8. DASTJ to the counsel for the respondents.

¶34

HIMA KOHLI, 3
SUNIL GAUR, J

¶35

FEBRUARY 16, 2016 s W.P.(C) 1079/2016 & connected matters

¶36

Page 5 of 5

Shah Md. Khan v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shah Md. Khan v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpanjali Farm Owners and Residents Welfare Association, Bijwasan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) & Ors.

Moti Kumari Vs Secretary General, Supreme Court of India

Abhishek Prakash Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi, India & Anr.

Mustajab Ali Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Pan Parag India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)Delhi & Anr.

Kothari Product Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs Export Inland Container Depot Tuglakabad New Delhi & Anr.

Npt Papers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Accountant Girish Bagdi Vs Prinicipal Commiissioner of Customs Icd (Import) Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Mahipal Dabas & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishan Kant Yadav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shobha Kumari Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nilam Kumari Vs Union of India & Anr.

Deepak Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Group Capt (Dr) B S Nayyar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Narender Reddy Vs Union of India & Ors.