Personnel Permitted To Live Outside Quarters Can't Be Denied CILQ/HRA Benefits: Armed Forces Tribunal

Background Facts

The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 26.12.1995. He served at various field and peace stations during his service tenure. From April 2009 to 12.03.2011, he was posted at Ferozepur, Punjab. Thereafter, on 13.03.2011, he was attached to 75 Medium Regiment for duties with the Directorate General of Artillery (Artillery Coordination), Army HQ, New Delhi, by an official order dated 09.06.2011. It was subsequently formalized as a permanent posting by Artillery Records Posting Order dated 16.06.2011, though over and above the authorized strength of the unit.

On 03.08.2011, the Commanding Officer of 75 Medium Regiment granted him permission to live outside military quarters with his family. A proposal was initiated for grant of Compensation in Lieu of Quarters (CILQ), but Station Headquarters, Delhi Cantonment, returned the same on 08.12.2011. He held that CILQ was not admissible to personnel posted over and above the authorized strength of units in Delhi. Therefore, the applicant was paid only Family Accommodation Allowance (FAA) at the rate of 10% of pay.

The applicant was promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar on 01.05.2014. The applicant submitted representations dated 13.03.2013 and 15.07.2014 seeking grant of CILQ/HRA. Both were recommended by superior authorities, but no action was taken by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal on 17.12.2014 challenging the denial of CILQ/HRA benefits.

It was submitted by the applicant that he was officially attached and permanently posted to 75 Medium Regiment for duties with the Directorate General of Artillery, by a departmental order dated 16.06.2011. Therefore he became entitled to the corresponding benefits of CILQ/HRA. The denial of such benefits on the ground that he was posted over and above the authorized strength is wholly arbitrary, since the posting was not on his own request but on account of service requirements.

It was further submitted that the applicant had been duly granted permission by the competent authority to reside outside military quarters along with his family, but he was wrongly sanctioned only Family Accommodation Allowance (FAA) at the rate of 10% of pay. This rate was ordinarily admissible only to unmarried personnel below the age of 25 years. The applicant also submitted that he suffered financial loss amounting to ₹2,25,175/- including interest, as he had to incur personal expenses on rented accommodation and education of his children.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the applicant was posted on over and above the authorized strength of the unit. Therefore, he was not entitled to the grant of CILQ/HRA. It was contended that only admissible allowance is Family Accommodation Allowance (FAA) calculated at 10% of Basic Pay, Grade Pay and Military Service Pay. It was further submitted that the claim of the applicant was barred by the Government of India policy letter dated 18.11.2008. It clearly lays down that HRA shall be admissible only to personnel borne on the authorized married establishment of the Unit/Establishment/Station. Since the applicant was not part of the authorized married strength, he could not claim entitlement to CILQ/HRA. It was stated that the clarification issued by Station Headquarters, Delhi Cantonment, also confirmed that personnel posted over and above the authorized strength are eligible only for FAA.

Findings of the Tribunal

It was observed by the Tribunal that the applicant had initially been attached to 75 Medium Regiment, which was later converted into a permanent posting. The attachment and posting were not sought by the applicant on his own request but were made by lawful order of the respondents. It was further observed that the applicant was granted permission by the Commanding Officer to live outside the unit lines. Further he had been incurring expenses on rented accommodation for his family. Despite this, the respondents denied him the benefit of HRA/CILQ solely on the ground that he was posted over and above the authorized strength of the unit.

It was held by the Tribunal that after the posting orders had been issued by the respondents, the applicant could not be deprived of the consequential benefits attached to the posting. It was held that applicant was performing the same duties as those borne on the sanctioned strength, and was permitted to reside outside, hence there was no justification to treat him differently.

It was also held that the plea of the respondents, based on the Government of India policy letter dated 18.11.2008, could not override the principles of equity and natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the respondents could not take advantage of their own wrong act of posting the applicant and then denying him rightful entitlements.

It was thus held that the denial of CILQ/HRA amounted to arbitrary action on part of the respondents, causing financial loss to the applicant. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the respondents to release CILQ/HRA for the period from 13.03.2011 to 09.11.2014, after adjusting the amount already paid towards FAA. It was further directed that the payment be made within three months.

With the aforesaid observations, the Original Application was allowed.

Case Name : Nb Sub Vinod Kumar Chauhan vs Union of India and Ors.

Case No. : OA 665/2014

Counsel for the Applicant : Rudrashish Bhardwaj, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Neeraj, Sr CGSC with Rudra Paliwal, Advocate