Allowed

Abhishek Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/997/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed five writ petitions, holding that CISF members permitted to reside out of campus are entitled to House Rent Allowance if official married accommodation is not provided. An order mandated payment within four months with interest stipulated for delay, adjusting monetary compensation already received.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay House Rent Allowance to petitioners for the period of outdoor residence permission, within four months, with 8% interest for delay.

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

¶1

$~4, 5, 6 and 27.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 992/2016 and CMs No.4320-21/2016

¶4

- W.P.(C) 995/2016 and CMs No.4340-41/2016

¶5

- W.P.(C) 997/2016 and CMs No.4344-45/2016

¶6

- W.P.(C) 1042/2016 and CMs No.4524-25/2016

¶7

SANJIT PAUL ..... Petitioner PRADEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner ABHISHEK KUMAR ..... Petitioner KSHATRIYA HARIOM SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶8

Through : Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate

¶9

versus

¶10

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Archna Gaur, Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 10.02.2016

¶14

The present 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.

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(C) 992/2016 and connected matters Page 1 of 4

¶17

Accommodation (Married).

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(C) 992/2016 and connected matters Page 2 of 4

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Accordingly, the present writ petitions and the applications are allowed 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 sub-Rule 3 of Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001 shall be duly adjusted.

¶24

W.P.(C) 992/2016 and connected matters Page 3 of 4

¶25

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.

¶26

The petitions are disposed of along with the pending applications. DASTI to the counsel for the respondents.

¶27

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶28

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶29

FEBRUARY 10, 2016 sk

¶30

W.P.(C) 992/2016 and connected matters Page 4 of 4

Abhishek Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek 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

Manoj Kumar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anirudh Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sangeeta Rai Vs the Sdmc and Anr.

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

R.K. Anand & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Vs M/S Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Krishan & Co. Vs UOI & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anirudh Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gugan Ram Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dev Varat Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santosh Satappa Madilagekar Vs UOI & Ors.

Pramod Kumar Vs UOI & Ors.