Delhi High Court
Gorakh Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 May, 2022
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26.05.2022
+ W.P.(C) 8438/2022
GORAKH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Gurdeep Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 25416/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8438/2022
3. By way of present petition, petitioner prays as under:
a. To direct the respondents for grant of HRA to the petitioner w.e.f.
28.09.2016 till 30.09.2020 (excluding the period of 27.03.2017 to
03.05.2017) at the rates of respective place of posting applicable to
commandant level officers, alongwith interest @ 12 % PA;
b. To direct respondents for grant of HRA to the Petitioner w.e.f
28.09.2016 till 30.09.2020 (excluding the period of 27.03.2017 to
03.05.2017) at the rates of respective place of posting applicable to
Personnel below Officers Ranks alongwith interest @ 12 % PA;
c. To quash the impugned order dated 02.01.2021 to the effect it rejects
prayer of petitioner for grant of HRA at the rates of respective place
of posting applicable to the commandant level officers.
4. Pertinently, in earlier round of litigation, petitioner filed a petition
bearing no. W.P.(C) 8172/2020 seeking directions to the respondents to
grant HRA to the petitioner w.e.f. 28.09.2016 (excluding the period of
27.03.2017 to 03.05.2017) along with interest @ 12% p.a., however, the
same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.10.2020 on the
statement of learned counsel for the petitioner and the relevant paras of the
said order are as under:
"5. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw the petition with liberty to again represent to
the respondents CISF for grant of HRA and states that if
the petitioner does not succeed in his representation and /
or his representation is rejected, the petitioner will not
avail of any legal remedy before any forum, qua HRA.
6. Though as aforesaid, we have fully heard the counsel
for the petitioner but on the condition that the petitioner,
if remains aggrieved, either from the decision on his
representation or from no decision being taken on the
representation which he intends to make, shall not avail
any legal remedies, we allow the petitioner to withdraw
the petition at this stage, only to make a representation to
the respondents CISF for the same relief but again
clarifying that the petitioner shall have no further
redressal avenues available.
7. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
aforesaid."
5. Consequently, the petitioner made representation and same has been
rejected by stating that petitioner is not entitled.
6. Despite the aforesaid undertaking of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, present petition has been filed.
7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
petitioner retired from the respondents department on 30.09.2020 on
attaining the age of superannuation but as vide order dated 10.02.2021, the
respondents themselves have started granting HRA to commandant level
officers of CRPFs, therefore, the petitioner is entitled qua the said order for
grant of HRA.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that
though the petitioner had retired on 30.09.2020 whereas order dated
10.02.2021 is prospective in nature and applicable on the surviving officers
as on that date.
9. This Court put a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner
whether the HRA sought is for the period other than the period from
28.09.2016 till 30.09.2020 (excluding the period of 27.03.2017 to
03.05.2017) along with interest @ 12% p.a. In response, he admitted said
fact. However, the said issue has already been disposed of vide order dated
19.10.2020 in the W.P.(C) 8172/2020. Moreover, the order dated 10.02.2021
is applicable on the surviving officers as on that date, whereas, the petitioner
had retired on 30.09.2020.
10. In view of above, no fresh cause of action arises in favour of the
petitioner, the petition is dismissed accordingly.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(SAURABH BANERJEE)
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2022/ab
