Supreme Court Issues Notice In Centre’s Plea Against Extending HRA For All Ranks In Paramilitary Forces; Stays Contempt Proceedings Before Delhi HC

The High Court in the impugned judgment had observed that the Centre cannot be permitted to take discriminatory view for personnel of different forces deployed in common areas for grant of HRA.

On the contentions put forth by the Centre, a bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted, “While the Division Bench has spoken of discrimination between the officers and the PBORs to justify the direction given in the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2022, the learned ASG submits that two different categories of personnels i.e., officers and the PBORs are erroneously clubbed alike to justify the direction in favour of the officers. However, the OM dated 31.07.2017 which implemented the Seventh Pay Commission Recommendations under Clause 8.7.23, was not intended for those in the officers cadre”.

A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the petitioner-Union of India.

In the matter, the UOI had contended that the Office Memorandum was to implement the recommendation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission providing for compensation for housing, to Personnel Below Officer Ranks (PBORs) of Central Armed Police Forces, who are not provided with rent free 1 accommodation. As per the said OM the dependents of the employees during their field posting or stay in the Barracks as functional requirement, will be eligible for accommodation anywhere in the country.

Therefore, it was argued that the additional benefit was not intended for officers but compensation was provided only for the PBORs. However, the Delhi High Court had categorised the officers and the PBORs together to say that a discriminatory treatment is meted out by denying the additional benefit also to the officers.

It is to be noted that in the impugned judgment, a Division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee had observed, “While commending the Seventh Pay Commission acknowledging the services of uniformed services regarding HRA had observed, “We are also in consent with the view that they are required to stay in the fields, far off from all necessary amenities while leaving their families behind. We, while holding the Chair as the Judges of this Court as well as normal civilians, respect their will power to stay away from their families. Interestingly though the competent authority of Seventh Pay Commission also recognized the lack of proper compensation and need of paying HRA to these employees, we fail to understand why the Commission only thought of giving parity to the PBORs of CAPF at par with PBORs of Defence Forces; while leaving behind the proposal of extending the same benefit to the Coy Commanders (officers of the level of Assistant Commandants/ Deputy Commandants) under examination. It is a strange anomaly which is sought to be corrected in this petition”.

Further, through the impugned judgment the Court had set aside the letter refusing to grant HRA to the petitioners (respondents herein) while directing the Union of India to take necessary steps within six weeks of the judgment, in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as Ministry of Finance, to grant benefit of HRA to the petitioners and similarly situated personnel w.e.f, passing of the judgment.

Noting non-compliance of the order, the High Court then in its order dated August 29, 2023 observed, “Time and again it is coming to the notice of this Court that the timelines and the directions given by this Court are totally ignored and not adhered to. The mere fact that an SLP is filed is no reason for noncompliance of the order. The respondent No. 2 – CRPF is a security force and is not exempt from the jurisdiction of this Court. There is total non-compliance of the directions and timelines indicated by the Court”.

Cause Title: Union Of India & Ors. v. Gaurav Singh & Ors.