Allowed

Surjit Kumar Ray v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC6 May 2016W.P.(C)/3944/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants House Rent Allowance to a CISF member who was permitted outdoor residence but denied official married accommodation, relying on the precedent set in Jamila Hassina versus the Union of India which attained finality as the Supreme Court did not interfere.

What did the court decide?

Issued a writ of mandamus to pay House Rent Allowance from 24.04.2014 to 31.01.2016, adjusting monetary compensation under CISF Rules, within four months with 8% per annum simple interest if delayed.

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

¶1

$~25.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3944/2016 and CM APPL. 16667/2016

¶4

SURJIT KUMAR RAY ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Prashan Kumar and Mr. Yashvir Gyalot, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr. Syed Husain Adil Taqvi, Advocate and Inspector Sanjay Kumar, CISF.

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R % 06.05.2016

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.2-CISF to pay him House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as ‘HRA’) for the period from 24.04.2014 to 31.01.2016, 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

¶12

WP(C) 3944/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

WP(C) 3944/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶17

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 petitioner herein.

¶18

Accordingly, the present writ petition and the application are disposed of by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents that the petitioner be paid HRA from 24.04.2014 to 31.01.2016, as he was granted outdoor residence permission for the said period, though he was entitled to official accommodation (married). 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.

¶19

The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 06, 2016 rkb

WP(C) 3944/2016 Page 3 of 3

Surjit Kumar Ray v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Kumar Ray 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

M/S Rathore Fair Price Shop Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Greatship (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Syndicate Bank Vs Anand Prasad & Anr.

Kiran Jain & Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ct./Drv.Ismail Khan Vs UOI & Ors.

Ram Awatar Verma Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shikha Malhotra Vs Director of Education and Ors.

Ex. Const. Gd Rajbir Singh Vs UOI & Ors.

Constable Veer Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Subhas Chandra Sarkar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Jai Pal Vs UOI and Ors.

Manna Ram and Anr. Vs UOI and Ors.

Brijender Singh Vs UOI and Ors.