All CISF Personnel Entitled To HRA If They Aren't Provided Accommodation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has endorsed a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court which held that Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”) personnel are entitled to receive  House Rent Allowances (“HRA”) from the Union Government as provided to other paramilitary forces.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India against the 2017 judgments of the Delhi High Court while holding that all CISF personnel are entitled to HRA if they are not provided accommodation. The lead appeal of the Union was filed against the HC judgment in Paramasivan M v. Union of India, which relied on an earlier judgment in Anand Kumar v. Union of India. 

The Union's argument against the grant of HRA was that the CISF Personnel was not amongst the top 45% in the seniority list. The union's argument that the HRA was only provided to 45% married and 55% unmarried enrolled members- was rejected by the Delhi High Court.

"In the present case, the petitioner had not occupied barrack or unmarried accommodation. He was denied outliving permission with HRA on account of the fact that he was not amongst the top 45% in the seniority list. The said denial was on account of the respondents' interpretation of Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (Rules for short). This interpretation of Rule 61 by the respondents has to be rejected in terms and ratio expounded in Jaspal Singh Mann (supra), holding that on conjoint and harmonious reading of sub-rule 1, 2 and 3, the percentage requirement would be only applicable in case family accommodation was available for the married enrolled members of the Force. In the present case, as family accommodation was not available in the township, or provided by the undertaking where the petitioner was posted, the petitioner would be entitled to HRA. This would be just and fair, as the petitioner had taken private accommodation on hire.", the High Court observes while allowing the HRA to the respondent/CISF Personnel.

The High Court's decision was based on Rule 61 (2) of the Central Industrial Security Forces Rules, 2010, which states that:

“The accommodation to the enrolled member of the Force shall be rent-free but where such facilities are not available they shall get house rent allowance in lieu thereof as applicable to other central government employees.”

In Anand Kumar, the High Court noted 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. This stand of the respondents was held to be "unacceptable and fallacious" by the High Court.

The impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court followed an earlier judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in 2008 in the case Jaspal Singh Mann Vs Union of India & Ors, which interpreted Rule 61(2) and held that CISF personnel will be entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) like other central government employees.

In Jaspal Singh, the High Court stated that the Union Govt. cannot discriminate against the CISF personnel where in some of the paramilitary forces, 100 percent of the force is being granted family accommodation or HRA in lieu thereof.

“Sub-rule 2 of Rule 61 of the said Rules is unambiguous in as much as, it says that those who cannot be provided - with a free accommodation because of the paucity of accommodation which has to be distributed in the ratio of 45 percent: 55 percent in case of married and unmarried officials, shall be provided HRA in lieu thereof. If Rule 61 (1) and Rule 61(3) of the said Rules are read together, the only conclusion which can be derived is, that while there may be a situation where there may not be a house available for allotment to an officer posted at a particular station, he still would be entitled to HRA.”, observes the High Court while deciding Jaspal Singh Mann.

In 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against Jaspal Singh Mann.

In view of this, the present appeal against the 2017 judgment (which followed Jaspal Singh Mann) was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated :

“According to the High Court(in Jaspal Singh), if Rule 61 is interpreted in the manner suggested by the Union of India, it will be discriminatory and will fall foul of the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution. In fact, no rationale nexus with the object relating to grant of HRA, for discriminatory treatment was found by the Court. Rule 61 of the CISF Rules was accordingly read down to imply that such entitlement will be within the parameters of such rules. In other words, where the employer was unable to provide family accommodation within the township to the enrolled personnel, they will be entitled to HRA. If the dues are not paid within three months, they were to carry interest @8%.”, the Supreme Court added.

Having considered the basis for the interpretation given in Jaspal Singh Mann (supra) and upon consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court said that it saw no reason to disturb the view taken in favour of the respondents, by the High Court.

 Case Details: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS PARAMISIVAN M., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4967 of 2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134

Click Here To Read/Download The Order