Delhi High Court
Sule Oraon vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 May, 2016
$~20, 22, 23, 27 and 35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3616/2016 & C.Ms. No. 15498-99/2016
SULE ORAON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with
Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 3618/2016 & C.Ms. No. 15503-04/2016
RITUJA NEOG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with
Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 3620/2016 & C.M. No. 15510/2016
J BINUSH JOHN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prasanta Verma, Sr. CGSC with
Mr. Anirudh Shukla and
Mr. Sumit Rajput, Advocates.
AND
WP (C) No 3616/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 4
+ W.P.(C) 3626/2016 & C.M. No. 15531/2016
PREM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with
Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 3675/2016 & C.MS. No. 155733-34/2016
V. SEENAIAH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. CGSC with
Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 03.05.2016
1. The above captioned 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 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 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 7 th 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 along with the pending applications.
DASTI to the counsel for the respondents.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 03, 2016
sk
