Allowed

Raju Prasad v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC3 May 2016W.P.(C)/3614/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench directed the Union of India/CISF to pay House Rent Allowance to certain personnel who were granted permission to live out of campus but were not provided with official married accommodation, limiting the relief to three years from the date of listing and directing adjustment of monetary compensation already paid for same.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were directed to be paid House Rent Allowance for a period of three years from 29.4.2016, adjusted by monetary compensation paid under Rule 61, within four months or with 8% interest there

Raju Prasad Vs Union of India and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~18, 19 & 42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3608/2016 & C.Ms. No. 15484/2016 & 15485/2016

¶4

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

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Advocate.

¶7

AND

¶8

W.P.(C) 3614/2016 & C.M. No. 15495/2016 RAJU PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.

¶9

versus

¶10

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.

¶11

AND

¶12

- W.P.(C) 3751/2016 & C.Ms. No. 15959-60/2016 RENU KUMARI ..... Petitioner

¶13

Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.

¶14

versus

¶15

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.

¶16

WP(C) 3608/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

% 03.05.2016

¶20

The present of petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.2-CISF to pay them House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as ‘HRA’) , to which they are legitimately entitled.

¶21

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the prayer in the petitions is for payment of HRA arrears for overstay periods even beyond three years, the petitioners propose to confine the relief to grant of HRA for a period of three years reckoned from the date of listing of the petition, i.e., 29.4.2016.

¶22

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. The petitioners were not provided with the Government Accommodation (Married).

¶23

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

¶24

WP(C) 3608/2016 & connected matters Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

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 respondents 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 the 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Accordingly, the present writ petitions and the applications are disposed of by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents that the

¶29

WP(C) 3608/2016 & connected matters Page 3 of 4

¶30

petitioners be paid HRA, but only for a period of three years reckoned from today, i.e., from 29.4.2016, as they were granted outdoor residence permission for the said period, though they were entitled to official accommodation (married). 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.

¶31

The petitions are disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 03, 2016 sk

WP(C) 3608/2016 & connected matters Page 4 of 4

Raju Prasad v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Prasad v. Union of India and 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

Rajesh Aggarwal Vs the Commissioner, N.D.M.C. and Ors.

Raj Kumar Tanti Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Malik Cable T.v.Network Vs the Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Rajinder Kakkad Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vidya Bharati School Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

M/S. Himalaya Communications Ltd. Vs Northern Railways

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary (Finance) & Ors.

Philips India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Tax (System Branch)

Anil Gulati Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sub Dinesh Singh Tomar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dube Mithileshkumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sule Oraon Vs Union of India and Anr.

J Binush John Vs Union of India and Anr.

Anuradha Kumari Vs Union of India and Ors.