Madras High Court
K.C.Sreevidya vs The Union Of India on 13 October, 2025
W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13/10/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Writ Petition Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013
K.C.Sreevidya ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.6324 of 2013
Rohan M. Nair ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.6325 of 2013
Vs
1. The Union of India
rep. By the Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi.
2. The Director General
Central Industrial Security Force
CISF Headquarters
Block No.3, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013
3. The Inspector General
CISF South Sector
Chennai Port Trust Complex
Chennai.
4. The Senior Commandant/
(Civil Aviation Security Officer)
CISF Unit, ASG
Chennai Airport
Chennai 27. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent in Nos.PR-
13015/CISF/CAP/QM/HRA/2011-3216 and PR-
13015/CISF/CAP/QM/HRA/2011-8170 dated 1/5/2011 and and
17/11/2011 and quash the same in so far as it denies the grant of House Rent
Allowance and direct the respondents to grant House Rent Allowance to the
petitioner for the period from 20th December, 2010 till May 2012 and grant
all consequential monetary benefits.
For petitioners ... Mr.T.N.Sugesh
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm )
W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013
For respondents ... Mr.G.Ilangovan
for R.1
No appearance
for R.R.2 to 4.
-----
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in W.P.No.6324 of 2013 is the 'wife' and the petitioner in W.P.No.6325 of 2013 is the 'husband'. Both the petitioners have joined the Central Industrial Security Force as Lady Sub-Inspector/Executive and Sub-Inspector/Executive, respectively, on 8/11/2003 at Ahmedabad. Later, they were transferred from Ahmedabad to CISF Unit, ASG, Chennai and reported to duty on 20/12/2010. They gave representations for 'out-living', i.e., to reside outside the premises of ASG, Chennai in a rented house and also to provide House Rent Allowance.
2. According to the respondents, applications/representation of the petitioners were under consideration and they would be granted HRA, as and when they are entitled to in accordance with seniority. In the meanwhile, the respondents permitted the petitioners to stay outside the premises of ASG, Chennai with their infant aged 1 ½ years. The petitioners 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 were not provided HRA but FAA (Family Accommodation Allowance). The petitioners filed the instant writ petitions seeking HRA from December 2010 to May 2012.
3. Heard Mr.T.N.Sugesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the first respondent.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that HRA ought to have been granted by the respondents in accordance with Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as CISF Rules), as they were entitled to HRA, since they were staying in a rented accommodation outside the premises of ASG, Chennai and ASG Chennai did not provide family accommodation.
5. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled for HRA, since HRA would be sanctioned on the basis of seniority. HRA was granted to 45% of the posted strength in each rank, as per the directions of AAI Management. 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 However, the petitioners were granted HRA after May, 2012, as they fell within the 45% of the posted strength. Further, since both the petitioners were transferred to New Delhi with effect from 21/2/2013 and the petitioners are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, writ petitions have to be dismissed as not maintainable.
6. The following facts are not disputed:-
(i). Both the writ petitioners were not given HRA till 29/3/2012.
According to the respondents, both the petitioners were paid HRA with effect from 29/3/2012.
(ii). ASG, Chennai did not have family accommodation and only barracks were available and hence, they were given Family Accommodation Allowance (FAA) as they were staying in a private rented accommodation.
(iii). The petitioners had given an undertaking that they intended to 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 stay outside the ASG Chennai premises because they had to take care of their infant child of 1 ½ years.
7. The issue relates to payment of HRA from December 2010 to May 2012 during which time, the petitioners were working in CISF, AIG, Chennai. Though the petitioners were working at Delhi, when the writ petitions are filed, that does not mean that this Court has no jurisdiction. The prayer sought in the writ petitions are for payment of HRA which was denied to them during the period while they were working in Chennai, as such the writ petitions are maintainable.
8. It is relevant to extract Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and the same reads thus:-
Free accommodation:- (1) Normally, the undertaking where the Force has been deputed shall provide accommodation in the township itself to all supervisory officers and at the rate of 45 per cent married and 55 per cent unmarried or as amended by the Central Government from time 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 to time, to the enrolled members of the Force.
(2). 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.
(3). The members of the force shall also get compensation in lieu of married accommodation in terms of orders issued by the Government from time to time in this respect. The compensation shall be payable to that percentage of members of the Force who are entitled to get married accommodation minus those members of the Force who are allotted accommodation by the Undertaking.
(4). Supervisory Officer of the Force who is provided accommodation by the Public Sector Undertakings or allotted accommodation by Directorate of Estate will pay license fee to the Public Sector Undertakings at the rates as applicable to their own employees or the license fee as fixed by the Central Government for 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 general pool accommodation from time to time with reference to plinth area of accommodation, as the case may be.”
9. According to Rule 61 of the above said Rules, free accommodation has to be provided at the CISF deployed premises, where the CISF member (employee) is working. Further in the said premises/township, all the Supervisory Officers shall be accommodated at the rate of 45% for married working personnel and 55% to unmarried working personnel.
10. Since there was no family accommodation at CISF, ASG Chennai, question of giving free accommodation to the petitioners who are wife and husband is ruled out. They had a child aged 1 ½ years for which reason both the petitioners sought permission to live outside in a rented accommodation.
11. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners entitlement for HRA was on the basis of seniority as directed by 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 AAI Management is contrary to Rule 61 (2). In accordance with Rule 61 (2), accommodation to enrolled member including the supervisory Officers such as the writ petitioners would be rent free and where such facilities are not available, the enrolled members (employees of CISF) are entitled for House Rent Allowance. The wording in 61 Clause (2) is very clear 'where facilities are not available, they shall get House Rent Allowance'. Rule 61 (1) prescribes the percentage of accommodation to be given to Supervisory Officers and Rule 61 (2) speaks in general about entitlement of HRA to all the employees of CISF. There is no categorisation of employees in 61 (2). It applies to all cadres.
12. The reasoning given by the respondents that both the writ petitioners accepted to live together in a rented premises without House Rent Allowance, cannot be accepted. Firstly, writ petitioners were not provided with family accommodation. It is incumbent on the part of the respondents to give House Rent Allowance in accordance with Section 61 (2). House Rent Allowance cannot be denied when the respondents could not provide a rent free family accommodation in the premises where CISF 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 has been deputed.
13. In Rule 61 (1), percentages mentioned are regarding the married and unmarried Officers entitlement of accommodation in the township where the CISF has been deputed and not regarding the entitlement of House Rent Allowance.
14. It is incorrect to state that Rule 61 Clause (1) speaks about the entitlement of House Rent Allowance on the basis of seniority, as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents. Nowhere in Rule 61 (1) of the Rules, there is a mention about House Rent Allowance.
15. The entitlement of House Rent Allowance is specified in Rule 61 (2) and such entitlement is when the facility of accommodation is not available within the township as mentioned in Rule 61 (1) of the Rules. The argument of the respondents that the petitioners entitlement for House Rent Allowance was considered and accordingly, granted House Rent Allowance with effect from 29/3/2012 cannot be accepted and also not in 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 accordance with Rule 61 of the Rules. House Rent Allowance entitlement is mandatory, once no accommodation is made available to any enrolled member including the Supervisory Officer of CISF.
16. As already discussed, the argument that the petitioners stayed in a rented accommodation giving up their House Rent Allowance is incorrect. Admittedly, both the writ petitioners initially gave application for staying outside and to provide with House Rent Allowance. However, from the facts, it appears that they were forced by the Management to give up their House Rent Allowance and stay outside. Since the petitioners had 1 ½ year old child, they were compelled to accept that they would stay outside without House Rent Allowance. Even if the petitioners have subsequently given an undertaking that they would give up the HRA and stayed outside, that would not disentitle them from asking for HRA, since Rule 61 (2) makes it mandatory to pay HRA to employees who could not be accommodate in the premises itself.
17. In view of the above discussion, writ petitions are allowed. 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 The fourth respondent is directed to calculate the House Rent Allowance to the petitioners from the date they joined their duty i.e., in December 2010 till 28/3/2012 and the same to be paid, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting FAA, i.e., Family Accommodation Allowance that was paid to the petitioners. No costs.
(K.SURENDER,J) 13th October, 2025 mvs.
Index: Yes Neutral Citation: Yes/No To
1. The Secretary, Union of India 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi.
2. The Director General Central Industrial Security Force CISF Headquarters, Block No.3, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General CISF South Sector Chennai Port Trust Complex Chennai.
4. The Senior Commandant/(Civil Aviation Security Officer) CISF Unit, ASG Chennai Airport Chennai 27.
K.SURENDER, J mvs.
13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm ) W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 W.P.Nos.6324 and 6325 of 2013 13/10/2025 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 05:28:02 pm )