Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Restricting Retention Of General Pool Residential Accommodation By CAPF Personnel To Max Three Years
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has upheld a rule putting restriction on the retention of Basic Pool Residential Lodging (GPRA) by Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) personnel to a most of three years on the final place of posting, when a personnel is thereafter posted to a Non-Household Station.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur upheld the validity of Rule 43 of the Central Authorities Basic Pool Residential Lodging Guidelines, 2017 (CGGPRA Guidelines).
The Court docket rejected a batch of pleas filed by numerous CAPF personnel, comprising of Indo-Tibetan Border Safety Power, Central Reserve Police Power, and so forth., posted to rebel or Non-Household Stations— beneath difficult situations dwelling in distant areas away from their households.
It was the petitioners’ case that the impugned Rule is bigoted and void for being violative of Article 14 of the Structure of India, inasmuch because it treats Central Authorities workers posted on civilian posts and personnel of the CAPF at par, regardless of them forming distinct courses.
It was contended that the restriction on retention of GPRA to a most of three years should bear a direct nexus to the tenure of posting at such Non-Household or Onerous Stations.
They submitted that the capping of the retention of GPRA at three years, doesn’t adequately profit CAPF personnel, who could proceed to be posted at Non-Household Stations past the stated interval.
Then again, the federal government submitted that GPRA is allotted to the eligible Central Authorities Staff based mostly on the rationale that Authorities Staff ought to ideally reside close to their place of posting, in order that they’re available to take care of official duties and might reply promptly in case of any exigency.
It was submitted that the restriction within the impugned Rule was imposed after detailed examination of the matter contemplating elements resembling acute scarcity of presidency residential quarters and lengthy ready lists of eligible officers looking for lodging.
It was additionally contended that the personnel can method their respective Competent Authorities for allotment from this pool, relatively than insisting on retention of GPRA for an indefinite interval.
Rejecting the petitions, the Bench stated that freshly posted workers are equally entitled to lodging beneath the provisions of the CGGPRA Guidelines, and such entitlement just isn’t confined to members of the CAPF but in addition extends to different central authorities workers.
“This Court docket can’t, thus, lose sight of the truth that numerous workers of the central authorities and CAPF are awaiting their allotment and are being disadvantaged of the good thing about allotment of presidency lodging for lengthy intervals and their indefeasible entitlement to authorities lodging shall be defeated, if the CAPFs personnel continued to carry the GPRA past a restricted interval,” the Court docket stated.
It added that Rule 43 of the CGGPRA Guidelines can’t be held to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Structure of India, inasmuch as the identical has been framed upon due consideration of all related elements.
The Court docket stated that the imposition of a three-year cap on retention of lodging was not both whimsical or fanciful in order to ask the vice of arbitrariness, thereby warranting the invocation of Article 14 of the Structure of India.
“Having examined the matter in its entirety, we discover no substantive floor to accede to this prayer as a matter of coverage. Nonetheless, if the petitioners, on particular person foundation, make out some particular circumstances, they’re at liberty to method the Competent Authority for due consideration of their particular case, in accordance with the relevant guidelines and insurance policies,” the Court docket stated.
Title: INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and different linked issues
