Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Sah vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 February, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~13 & 15.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 974/2016 and CMs No.4262-63/2016
MANOJ KUMAR SAH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dahiya, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, Advocate
AND
+ W.P.(C) 980/2016 and CMs No.4299/2016 and 4484/2016
SATISH CHANDRA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 09.02.2016
1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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 27th 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 23rd 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the
judgment dated 27th May, 2015, another batch of matters that had
raised the same issue, was allowed on 7th 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 7th April, 2015, as it has since attained finality.
5. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not interfered in
the judgment dated 7th April, 2015 pronounced by the Division Bench in
the case of Jamila Hassina (supra) and vide order dated 24th 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.
6. 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.
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.
7. The petitions are disposed of along with the pending applications.
DASTI to the counsel for the respondents.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2016
sk/rkb
