Allowed

Krishan Kant Yadav v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/1149/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed writ petitions filed by CISF employees, directing the Department to pay House Rent Allowance for the period outdoor residence permission was granted, as no official married accommodation was provided, relying on settled judicial precedents.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus to pay House Rent Allowance for the period of outdoor residence permission granted, if no official married accommodation is available, within four months from the date of the order.

Krishan Kant Yadav Vs Union of India & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3, 4, 6 to 9 and 28.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1082/2016 and CMs No.4721-22/2016

¶4

- W.P.(C) 1084/2016 and CMs No.4726-27/2016

¶5

- W.P.(C) 1087/2016 and CMs No.4732-33/2016

¶6

- W.P.(C) 1093/2016 and CMs No.4754-55/2016 + W.P.(C) 1094/2016 and CMs No.4756-57/2016 + W.P.(C) 1095/2016 and CMs No.4758-59/2016 + W.P.(C) 1149/2016 and CMs No.5071-72/2016

¶7

RUMPA PAUL ..... Petitioner NISHI KUMARI ..... Petitioner NILAM KUMARI ..... Petitioner TEJVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner SHOBHA KUMARI ..... Petitioner BAPPADITYA SAHA ..... Petitioner KRISHAN KANT YADAV ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate

¶8

versus

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advocate in W.P.(C) 1082/2016, 1084/2016, 1095/2016. Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate in W.P.(C) 1087/2016, 1093/2016, 1094/2016. Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate in W.P.(C) 1082/2016, 1084/2016 and 1087/2016. Ms. Archna Gaur, Adv. in W.P.(C) 1149/2016.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R % 15.02.2016

¶13

The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.2-CISF to pay them House

¶14

W.P.(C) 1082/2016 and connected matters Page 1 of 4

¶15

Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as ‘HRA’) , to which they are legitimately entitled.

¶16

The petitioners herein, who are enrolled as members of the respondent No.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).

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioners states 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 Avijit Das Vs. Union of India & Ors . , that were allowed by a Coordinate Bench vide Judgment dated 27^th 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 permitted to 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 Inspct./Exe Jaspal Singh Mann Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 23^rd May, 2008, the Division Bench had issued a writ of mandamus to the respondent-CISF that if no official accommodation was made available to the petitioners in the said case, then they would

¶18

W.P.(C) 1082/2016 and connected matters Page 2 of 4

¶19

be paid HRA for the period for which outdoor residence permission was granted to them.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the judgment dated 27^th May, 2015, another batch of matters that had raised the same issue, was allowed on 7^th April, 2015, by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 3340/2015 entitled Jamila Hassina Vs. 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^th August, 2015. It is thus submitted that petitioners are entitled to the same relief, as has been granted to other similarly placed petitioners in terms of the judgment dated 7^th April, 2015, as it has since attained finality.

¶21

In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not interfered in the judgment dated 7^th April, 2015 pronounced by the Division Bench in the case of Jamila Hassina (supra) and vide order dated 24^th 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 conclusively decided and it should apply in rem to all similarly placed personnel in the CISF, including the petitioners herein.

¶22

W.P.(C) 1082/2016 and connected matters Page 3 of 4

¶23

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-Rule 3 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 released 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.

¶24

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

¶25

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶26

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 15, 2016 sk

¶28

W.P.(C) 1082/2016 and connected matters Page 4 of 4

Krishan Kant Yadav v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kant Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mitali Bhattacharya Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Mangal Mishra and Ar Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.

D.T.C. Vs Rajbir Singh

Sudesh Kumari Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. Vs Pooja

Dr. V.K. Bahuguna Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rail Mazdoor Union Vs the Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.

M/S. Emaar Properties Pjsc Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Sirohi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mohan Singh Dangi Vs UOI & Ors.

Hc Rajesh Kumar Vs UOI & Nar

Ex Head Constable Nand Ram Vs UOI & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Ex Constable Dhananjay Kumar S Vs UOI & Ors.