Resolve Issue Of Rental Accommodation Of CRPF Personnel Posted In Delhi : Supreme Court Tells Union Govt

The Supreme Court recently directed the Union to resolve the issue of rental accommodation for CRPF Personnel stationed temporarily in Delhi within a reasonable time. The Court specified that unless the same is not done, it would necessarily issue directions under Article 142 Jurisdiction. 

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea relating to the issue of providing rental accommodation to CRPF personnel in Delhi under the HRA paid to them. 

The present case is the Union's challenge to the order of the Delhi High Court which had quashed the CRPF orders dated 17th February, 2005 and 28th April, 2017 making only those working in the HQs to be eligible for allotment of GPRA (General Pool Residential Accommodation). Here nine CRPF officers had moved the Court challenging the said orders by way of a writ petition. 

The Supreme Court framed the issue as follows : 

"Whether CRPF personnel who are posted here in Delhi for a limited duration of 2-3 years will be in position to get a reasonable accommodation on rental basis within the limits of HRA which is being paid to them." 

The Court proceeded to record that as per the affidavits filed by the respondents, government quarters cannot be allotted to the personnel. Considering the same, the Court directed the Union to come up with an adequate solution or it may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 by issuing relevant directions. 

The order read : 

"From the stand taken on affidavits, the Government quarters cannot be provided to them. We put Union of India to notice that unless this issue is resolved within a reasonable time, this Court will have to consider of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by issuing necessary directions." 

The matter will now be heard on April 7. 

Before The Delhi High Court 

The High Court bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh  in the writ petition, issued a mandamus that "all other officers of the CRPF situated in Delhi fulfilling the requirements of OM dated 3rd October, 1969 shall be entitled to apply for GPRA. Each such office should be issued a separate allotment code so that the Petitioners can apply for allotment under the GPRA."

Notably, the 1969 OM stated the conditions declaring an office eligible for GPRA in Delhi, which were :

“a) Their location in Delhi has been approved by the Cabinet/CCA.

b) They are part and parcel of the Secretariat of a Ministry or an attached or subordinate office of a Ministry or a department.

c) Their staff is paid from the consolidated fund of India.

d) They have not got any separate pool of accommodation for their staff; and

e) They are situated within the municipal limits of the NCT of Delhi." 

The High Court also rejected the contention of the Union that the said officers are not automatically entitled to allotment as they failed to fulfil the requirement under Rule 4 (b) of CGPRA Rules, 2017. 

Rule 4(b) states the eligibility of the office for allotment is that it should be part and parcel of the Secretariat of a Ministry/ attached/ subordinate office of a Ministry/ Department of Government of India.

The Court placed reliance on the OM of 1969 to note that the CRPF is part and parcel of the Secretariat of a Ministry or a subordinate office of a Ministry/Department of the Government of India.  

It added further that "the real reason appears to be shortage of accommodation and the fear that once allotted the officer will somehow retain the allotment even if he is transferred." 

Thus the court while passing the mandamus, also observed the responsibility of Union to ensure smooth administration of allotments and timely vacation of the accommodations by the officers once they are transferred elsewhere. It stated: 

"The problem therefore lies elsewhere and not with those eligible for allotment. It is the Respondent which has to put its administration in order to ensure that upon transfer, the officer concerned vacates the flat allotted to him. It would be no good an excuse to deny accommodation to the Petitioners who are currently serving and have been making repeated representations to the Respondents, but in vain." 

Case Details : UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS AC/M JITENDRA NARAYAN SINHA & ORS.| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2848/2020