Delhi High Court

Gyanendra Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr on 20 January, 2016

$~17 to 19, 23 to 26.

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C)   312/2016   and   CM   APPL.   1273-1274/2016
      W.P.(C)   323/2016   and   CM   APPL.   1303-1304/2016
      W.P.(C)   324/2016   and   CM   APPL.   1308/2016
      W.P.(C)   325/2016   and   CM   APPL.   1311/2016, 1314/2016
      W.P.(C)   326/2016   and   CM   APPL.   1316-1317/2016
      W.P.(C)   369/2016   and   CM   APPL.   1548-1549/2016
      W.P.(C)   371/2016   and   CM   APPL.   1550-1551/2016

      GYANENDRA KUMAR            ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 312/2016
      RANJIT KUMAR TRIPATHI      ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 323/2016
      SUNIL KUMAR SINGH          ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 324/2016
      SARFARAJ ALLAM             ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 325/2016
      AMRESH SHUKLA              ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 326/2016
      RAMAN JEE JHA              ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 369/2016
      GOPAL DUTT PATHAK          ..... Petitioner in W.P.(C) 371/2016
                     Through: Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, Advocate
                     with Ms. Pallavi Awasthi, Advocate

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ANR                     ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Garg, Advocate
                     with Mr. Ravinder Gupta, Advocate in W.P.(C)
                     312/2016, 323/2016, 324/2016, 325/2016
                     and 326/2016.
                     Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, Advocate in W.P.(C)
                     369/2016 and 371/2016.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         ORDER

% 20.01.2016

1. The present batch of 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. All 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 24th

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

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 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 alongwith the pending applications.

8. Before parting with these cases, we may note that on the last

date of hearing, i.e., on 18.01.2016 it was enquired from learned

counsel for the respondents as to whether compliances of the order

dated 21.08.2015 passed by the predecessor Bench in a batch of

matters, lead matter being W.P.(C) 7920/2015 have been made. The

said query was posed in view of the fact that despite clear orders

directing the respondents to ensure that no further case for release of

HRA comes to the Court when the principles enunciated in the earlier

judgment were clear, several cases have trickled in thereafter.

9. Pertinently, vide order dated 21.08.2015 passed in W.P.(C)

7920/2015, the respondent No.2/CISF was directed to issue a Circular

in proper format within two weeks for the aggrieved employees to

apply for release of HRA and further directions were issued that on

such applications being received, the same would be processed in a

time bound manner, within four weeks from the date of receipt

thereof. Lastly, it was directed that in case the Court encounters any

similar claims for release of HRA after 12 weeks from 21.08.2015,

then the DG, CISF will be summoned to attend the Court proceedings.

10. The period of 12 weeks reckoned from 21.08.2015, had expired

on 21.11.2015. However, even in the month of January, 2016, several

petitioners aggrieved by non-release of HRA, have approached the

Court for appropriate orders. On the last date of hearing, time was

granted to learned counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions

from the Department as to what action has been taken by the

respondent No.2/CISF for making compliance of the order dated

21.08.2015, passed in the captioned petition.

11. Today, counsel for the respondents submits that there was no

delay on the part of the respondent No.2/CISF, who had forwarded a

note to the Ministry of Home Affairs on 07.09.2015, alongwith a draft

circular and the said circular was in turn forwarded by the Ministry of

Home Affairs to the Ministry of Finance on 30.09.2015, for approval.

However, in its note dated 30.10.2015, the Department of

Expenditure, Ministry of Finance observed as below:-

" XXX XXX XXX

2. The matter has been considered in this Department and implementation of the common order in respect of WPs mentioned in Para „1‟ above is agreed to in respect of the petitioners only. In so far as issue of common order for grant of House Rent Allowance to all similarly situated CISF personnel in concerned, as contained in order dt. 21.08.2015 by the Honourable Delhi High Court, a decision on the matter may be deferred till the Report of 7th Central Pay Commissioner (CPC), which is awaited, is considered by the Government."

12. Learned counsel for the respondents states that an application

for seeking review of the order dated 21.08.2015 was filed in W.P.(C)

7920/2015 in December, 2015 and vide order dated 21.12.2015, the

same was dismissed with an observation that the Court had already

extended the time for compliance of the order dated 18.12.2015

passed in W.P.(C) 11658/2015.

13. Vide order dated 18.12.2015 passed in a batch of matters, lead

matter being W.P.(C) 11658/2015, the Division Bench had granted the

respondents a period of 12 weeks reckoned from 18.12.2015, for

making compliance of the order dated 21.08.2015. The period of 12

weeks reckoned from 18.12.2015, shall expire on 17.03.2016.

However, looking at the recalcitrant stand taken by the respondent