Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Restricting Retention Of General Pool Residential Accommodation By CAPF Personnel To Max Three Years
The Delhi High Court has upheld a rule placing restriction on the retention of General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) by Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) personnel to a maximum of three years at the last place of posting, when a personnel is thereafter posted to a Non-Family Station.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur upheld the validity of Rule 43 of the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017 (CGGPRA Rules).
The Court rejected a batch of pleas filed by various CAPF personnel, comprising of Indo-Tibetan Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, etc., posted to insurgent or Non-Family Stations— under challenging conditions living in remote areas away from their families.
It was the petitioners' case that the impugned Rule is arbitrary and void for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it treats Central Government employees posted on civilian posts and personnel of the CAPF at par, despite them forming distinct classes.
It was contended that the restriction on retention of GPRA to a maximum of three years must bear a direct nexus to the tenure of posting at such Non-Family or Hard Stations.
They submitted that the capping of the retention of GPRA at three years, does not adequately benefit CAPF personnel, who may continue to be posted at Non-Family Stations beyond the said period.
On the other hand, the government submitted that GPRA is allotted to the eligible Central Government Employees based on the rationale that Government Employees should ideally reside near their place of posting, so that they are readily available to attend to official duties and can respond promptly in case of any exigency.
It was submitted that the restriction in the impugned Rule was imposed after detailed examination of the matter considering factors such as acute shortage of government residential quarters and long waiting lists of eligible officers seeking accommodation.
It was also contended that the personnel can approach their respective Competent Authorities for allotment from this pool, rather than insisting on retention of GPRA for an indefinite period.
Rejecting the petitions, the Bench said that freshly posted employees are equally entitled to accommodation under the provisions of the CGGPRA Rules, and such entitlement is not confined to members of the CAPF but also extends to other central government employees.
“This Court cannot, thus, lose sight of the fact that a large number of employees of the central government and CAPF are awaiting their allotment and are being deprived of the benefit of allotment of government accommodation for long periods and their indefeasible entitlement to government accommodation shall be defeated, if the CAPFs personnel continued to hold the GPRA beyond a restricted period,” the Court said.
It added that Rule 43 of the CGGPRA Rules cannot be held to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the same has been framed upon due consideration of all relevant factors.
The Court said that the imposition of a three-year cap on retention of accommodation was not either whimsical or fanciful so as to invite the vice of arbitrariness, thereby warranting the invocation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
“Having examined the matter in its entirety, we find no substantive ground to accede to this prayer as a matter of policy. However, if the petitioners, on individual basis, make out some special circumstances, they are at liberty to approach the Competent Authority for due consideration of their specific case, in accordance with the applicable rules and policies,” the Court said.
Title: INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters