Allowed

V Gnancy v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC10 May 2016W.P.(C)/4131/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coordinate Bench held that CISF members permitted to live out of campus are entitled to House Rent Allowance if official married accommodation is not provided. Petitions disposed of by issuing writ of mandamus directing payment within four months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus to pay House Rent Allowance for the period of outdoor residence permission, adjusted against compensation under Rule 61 of CISF Rules, 2001, within four months.

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

¶1

$~14 to 16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4125/2016 & CM No.17396/2016

¶4

INDU KUMARI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.P. Sudershan, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.Satyendera Kumar, Advocate

¶7

W.P.(C) 4131/2016 & CM Nos.17454/2016, 17455/2016 V GNANCY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.P. Sudershan, Advocate

¶8

versus

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr.Shivam Chopra, Ms. Manisha Saroha and Ms.Priyansha Sinha, Advocates

¶10

- W.P.(C) 4132/2016 & CM Nos.17457/2016, 17458/2016 JYOTI VARKADE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.P. Sureshan, Advocate

¶11

versus

¶12

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.R. Goel, Advocate

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

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

¶15

W.Ps.(C) 4125, 4131 & 4132 of 2016

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

¶18

O R D E R 10.05.2016

¶19

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.

¶20

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).

¶21

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 be paid

¶22

W.Ps.(C) 4125, 4131 & 4132 of 2016

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

W.Ps.(C) 4125, 4131 & 4132 of 2016

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

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 along with the pending applications.

¶32

DASTI to the counsel for the respondents.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 10, 2016

W.Ps.(C) 4125, 4131 & 4132 of 2016

¶38

Page 4 of 4

V Gnancy v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Gnancy 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

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.

Gita & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs D.D.A. and Anr.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs D.D.A. and Anr.

Ttk Healthcare Limited Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

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

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

Sudesh Kumar Arora Vs Union of India and Ors.

Indu Kumari Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shashi Ranjan Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jyoti Varkade Vs Union of India and Anr.