Allowed

Sujeet Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC2 May 2016W.P.(C)/3749/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that a CISF personnel granted permission to live out of campus is entitled to House Rent Allowance if no official married accommodation is provided, following earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be paid House Rent Allowance for the period of permitted outdoor residence if no official married accommodation is available; payment to be completed within four months with 8% p.

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

¶1

$~45

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3749/2016 & C.M. 15947-48/2016 SUJEET KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate

¶4

Versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj & Ms. Abha Malhotra, Advocates

¶6

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

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 02.05.2016

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.2-CISF to pay House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as ‘HRA’) , to which he is legitimately entitled.

¶10

The petitioner herein, who is enrolled as a member 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 petitioner was not provided with the Government Accommodation (Married).

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner 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

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

W.P.(C) 3749/2016

¶14

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.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C) 3749/2016

¶19

conclusively decided and it should apply in rem to all similarly placed personnel in the CISF, including the petitioner herein.

¶20

Accordingly, the present writ petition and the applications are allowed by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents that the petitioner would be paid HRA for the period for which he was granted outdoor residence permission, if no official accommodation (married) has been made available to him. While making the payment of HRA, the monetary compensation paid to the petitioner 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 petitioner within a period of four months from today. If the said amount is not released to the petitioner 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.

¶21

The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 02, 2016

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 3749/2016

Sujeet Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdin Verma & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Next Radio Limited Vs Prasar Bharti & Anr.

Citizen Rights Foundation & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

A.I.Metals (P) Ltd. Vs Additional Director General & Ors.

K.S.Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

D.P. Sharma Vs M/S Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

Naik Kuldeep Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahavir Singh Aswal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Raghvendracharya Vs Union of India and Anr.

Nidhi Kumari Vs Union of India and Anr.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs S.K. Shrivastava

P. Santha Vs Union of India & Anr.