MUNNA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice. Sh. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC accepts notice.

(2.) All the petitioners are the employees of the Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF"). Their claim in these proceedings is for release of House Rent Allowance (HRA) benefits which according to them, they are legitimately entitled to. The respondent CISF's position has been that since the petitioners were provided barrack accommodation but were later permitted to leave such premises, they are disentitled to HRA.

(3.) At the outset it is pointed out that identical issues have been dealt with by previous orders of the Court. The latest in the series of orders is W.P.(C)5407/2015 and connected cases decided on 27.05.2015. The Court had then held placing reliance upon the previous rulings, and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dineshan K.K., 2008 1 SCC 586, Director, Central Plantation Crop Research Institute v. M. Purushothaman & Ors., 1995 Supp4 SCC 633, and after considering Rule 61 (3) of the CISF Rules, that the petitioners were justified in claiming HRA benefits.