Delhi High Court
Thakur Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: November 09, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2917/2017, CM No. 12715/2017
THAKUR DAS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Adv. with Mr. Sanjay
Kumar, Inspector/CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 12715/2017
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2917/2017
Rule DB.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus and a declaration that Rule 61 of the Central
Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 is ultra virus to the Constitution of India as it
gives power to the respondents to treat the Force members discriminatorily. Writ of
mandamus is also sought commanding the respondents to grant permission to the
petitioner to live outside the campus by obtaining a rented accommodation within the
close radius of campus and to pay HRA and TPT from the date petitioner joined the
CISF Unit of ASG Bangalore from 15th June, 2016 till 18th May, 2017. Prayer made
at 'd' in this writ petition is not pressed.
2. The necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of this Writ
Petition are that the petitioner was working as an Inspector with the CISF and has
been transferred at various units from time to time. The grievance of the petitioner is
that despite non availability of family accommodation in the campus, permission has
not been granted to the petitioner to live outside the campus on rent and consequently
HRA is not being paid to him.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that to decline the HRA, reliance is placed
on Rule 61, which he seeks to challenge. Counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the present case is fully covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar v. Union of India and Ors Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 6720/2016 decided on 30th August, 2017. Reliance is placed on
paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16, which read as under:-
13. On the question whether the respondents had sufficient married
accommodation, to which the petitioner was entitled, in the township or
provided by the Undertaking where the petitioner was posted, we have the
letter dated 11th May, 2016, written by the Assistant
Commandant/Administration, CISF Unit, International Airport, New Delhi.
Letter in terms states that no government family accommodation was
available in the unit and the personnel of the unit were being granted
outliving permission with HRA as per their seniority in lieu of government
accommodation. Seniority would be given only after reporting physically in
the unit and applying for the same. The petitioner in paragraph (xii) of the
writ petition has relied upon the said communication and stated that he had
got this information after he was given transfer/movement order on 7th
May,
2016 and had sent the communication seeking allotment of family
accommodation. The respondents in the counter affidavit have not denied
the aforesaid assertion and stated that paragraph (xii) of the writ petition
needs no reply being a matter of record.
14. The factual position which emerges, therefore, is that the respondents
were unable to provide family accommodation to the petitioner when he
was posted at the International Airport, New Delhi. The petitioner,
therefore, had to hire family accommodation at his own expense and was
staying outside with his family. The petitioner was denied HRA only on the
ground that he was not within the first 45% of the enrolled officers as per
the seniority list maintained by them, for this was the mandate and
requirement of sub-rule (1) to Rule 61. The said stand of the respondents in
view of the reasoning and ratio in Jaspal Singh Mann (supra) is
unacceptable and fallacious.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the petitioner would be
entitled to HRA from the date he assumed duties in Delhi at the
International Airport on 28th May, 2016 till 30th June, 2017.
16. The arrears would be paid within a period of three months from the
date a copy of this order is received by the respondents. While making
payment of arrears, the respondents would be entitled to adjust the
compensatory allowance i.e. Family Accommodation Allowance, if any,
paid to the petitioner. In case payment is not made within the aforesaid
period of three months from the date on which a copy of this order is
received, the respondents would be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of this order till payment is made."
4. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed that the judgment in
the case of Anand Kumar (supra) has been complied with. Accordingly, in
view of the detail reasoning of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar (supra),
the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioner would be paid arrears
for the period 15th June, 2016 till 18th May, 2017 within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents. We make it
clear, if the arrears are not released within the time granted, the petitioner would be
entitled to interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this order till payment is made.
The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
NOVEMBER 09, 2017/ak
