Allowed

Yogendra Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC12 May 2016W.P.(C)/4233/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a CISF personnel granted permission to live out of campus without official married accommodation is entitled to House Rent Allowance for the relevant period, relying on concluded judgments granting similar relief.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay HRA for the period 25.06.2013 to 01.08.2015, adjusting prior monetary compensation, within four months with 8% p.a. interest thereafter.

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

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4233/2016 & C.M. 17904/2016

¶4

YOGENDRA KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Prashant Kumar & Mr. M. Gahlot, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prashat Varma, CGSC with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Inspector, CISF

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R

¶8

% 12.05.2016

¶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 between 25^th June, 2013 to 1^st August, 2015, 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

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

W.P.(C) 4233/2016

¶14

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.

¶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

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C) 4233/2016

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents that the petitioner would be paid HRA for the period 25^th June, 2013 to 1^st August, 2015, 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 subRule 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 application.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 12, 2016 r

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 4233/2016

Yogendra Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Limited Vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr.

U.P. Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sewa International Fashion Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rajender Chauhan & Ors.

Hafiz Mohd Khalid Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Amar Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yogesh Singh and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Shashi Ranjan Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Asi/Gd Yogesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil Kumar Mahato Vs Union of India & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Nath Vs Union of India & Anr.