Allowed

Rituja Neog v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC3 May 2016W.P.(C)/3618/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed multiple writ petitions filed by CISF personnel. It directed the respondent CISF to pay House Rent Allowance to employees granted outdoor residence permission if no official married accommodation was provided, ordering payment within four months with 8% interest on delay. The amount received as monetary compensation under CISF Rules was to be adjusted.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus to pay House Rent Allowance for outdoor residence period, adjusted by any monetary compensation received, within four months or with 8% simple interest thereafter.

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

¶1

$~20, 22, 23, 27 and 35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

W.P.(C) 3616/2016 & C.Ms. No. 15498-99/2016 SULE ORAON ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.

¶3

versus ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents

¶5

AND

¶6

W.P.(C) 3618/2016 & C.Ms. No. 15503-04/2016 RITUJA NEOG ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.

¶7

AND

¶8

W.P.(C) 3620/2016 & C.M. No. 15510/2016 J BINUSH JOHN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.

¶9

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prasanta Verma, Sr. CGSC with Mr. Anirudh Shukla and Mr. Sumit Rajput, Advocates.

¶10

AND

¶11

WP (C) No 3616/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 4

¶12

- W.P.(C) 3626/2016 & C.M. No. 15531/2016 PREM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.

¶13

versus

¶14

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents

¶15

Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.

¶16

AND

¶17

- W.P.(C) 3675/2016 & C.MS. No. 155733-34/2016 V. SEENAIAH ..... Petitioner

¶18

Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.

¶19

versus

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

% 03.05.2016

¶24

The above captioned 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.

¶25

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).

¶26

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

¶27

WP (C) No 3616/2016 & connected matters Page 2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

WP (C) No 3616/2016 & connected matters Page 3 of 4

¶32

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.

¶33

Accordingly, the present writ petitions and the applications are disposed of 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.

¶34

The petitions are disposed of along with the pending applications.

¶35

DASTI to the counsel for the respondents.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 03, 2016 sk

WP (C) No 3616/2016 & connected matters Page 4 of 4

Rituja Neog v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rituja Neog 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.

Raju Prasad Vs Union of India and Anr.