Yash Pal v. Union of India & Anr.

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. At the outset, l^arned_ counsel for the petitioners states that she ma'^ be permitted to confine the prayers made in W.P.(C) No.430/2016 and W.P.(C) 433/2016 to prayer (i) alone while reserving the right of petitioners to seek their remedies with regard to payment of "arrears of transport allowance made at prayer (ii), by filing separate petitions. W.P.(C) 373/2016 Page 2 of[6] V 3.. These,.petitions are being^ h and disposed of whiie granting the reiief in respect of prayer (i) in W.P.(C) 430/2016 and 433/2016, which pertains to payment of House Rent Aliowance in iieu of the famiiy' accommodation, with iiberty to the petitioners in the said petitions to seek their remedies with regard to payment of arrears of transport allowance at prayer (ii), by filing separate petitions.

4. Ail the petitioners herein, who are enrolled as members of the respondent No.2-CISF, had approached the respondent No.2 for permission to live our'of cafnpus with family, which was duly granted. None of the petitioners herein were provided with the Government Accommodation (Married).

5. Learned counsdi 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 Aviiit Das Vs. Union of India S Ors.. that were allowed by a Coordinate Bench vide Judgment dated 27'^'^ 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 W.P.(C) 373/2016 W.P.(C)430/2016;: - - •.. u entitled to claim HRA. Turning down the respondent's plea and relying upon a decrsioh of. a 'Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 1712/2006 entitled Insoct./Exe Jasoal Sinah Mann Vs. DPI & Ors. decided pn 23'"'^ 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the judgment dated 27"^ May, 2015, another batch of matters that had raised the same issue,; was allowed on 7^^ 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 24'^'^ 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^'^ April, 2015, as it has since attained finality.

7. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not interfered W.P.(C) 430/2016 - 2016:DHC:9272-DB. "y.-.i in the judgment dated 7^^ April,.2015 pronounced by the Division Bench in the case of Jamila Hassina fsupra") and vide order dated 24^^ August, 2015, Special Leave. Petipon (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 arid it should apply /n rem B'all similarly placed personnel in the CISF, including the petitioners herein.

8. Accordingly, the present writ petitions and the applications are allowed by issuing" a writ of mandamus to the respondents that the petitioners would be paid Hl^ 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 petftioners 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 arinuni after the expiry of four months, till the date of payment.

9. The petitions are disposed of aiongwith the pending W.P.(C) 373/2016' Page 5of[6] applications.

JANUARY 21, 2016 HIMA KOHLI, J GAUR, J