Allowed

Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC23 May 2016W.P.(C)/4720/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner's claim for House Rent Allowance, directing payment for three years from the date of outdoor residence permission. The Court ordered adjustment of monetary compensation already paid under CISF Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay House Rent Allowance for three years with 8% simple interest if not paid within four months and adjustment of CISF monetary compensation.

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

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4720/2016 & C.Ms.19754-55/2016 DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. P.Sureshan, Advocate versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sarat Chandra, Mr. Sachin Chandra and Mr. Kishan Nautiya, Advocates, for respondents-UOI

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 23.05.2016

¶10

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

¶11

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the prayer in the petition is for payment of HRA arrears from 12.07.2012 to 31.08.2014, the petitioner shall confine the relief to grant of HRA for a period of three years counted from 23.05.2013. Ordered accordingly.

¶12

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).

¶13

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

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

W.P.(C) 4720/2016

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not interfered in the

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

W.P.(C) 4720/2016

¶21

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 petitioner herein.

¶22

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, but only for a period of three years reckoned backwards from today i.e. from 23^rd May, 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.

¶23

The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 23, 2016 s

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 4720/2016

Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

Jay Dee Exports Vs Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

Dileep Wangoo & Ors. Vs Insurance Authority & Ors.

Jay Iron and Steels Ltd. Vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India

Harkrishan Das Nijhawan Vs Regional Passport Office Delhi & Ors.

Valley Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs (General)

Shikha Seth Vs Directorate of Education & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India

Sukhdev Singh Lall Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mandeep Kumar Joon Vs Union of India and Ors.

T.R. Dagar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Puran Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Saajan Thapa Vs Union of India & Ors.