1 2025:CGHC:656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 858 of 2025 1 - Anil Kumar Bari S/o Munnilal Aged About 40 Years Working On The Post Of Constable (Batch No. 273), Posted At 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, Distt- Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Dharamjeet Singh S/o Shriram Singh Aged About 40 Years Working On The Post Of Constable (Batch No. 183), Posted At 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.) 3 - Ramjanm Singh Yadav S/o Shri Punwashi Yadav Aged About 41 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable (Batch No. 106) 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, Distt- Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Pravin Kumar S/o Rammehar Singh Aged About 35 Years Working On The Post Of Constable (Batch No. 354) 16th Batalian Posted At 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, Distt- Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Pintu Kumar Singh S/o Shri Karun Singh Aged About 36 Years Working On The Post Of Constable (Batch No. 417), 16th Battalion Posted At 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, Distt.- Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Vinay Singh S/o Shri Balhukum Aged About 40 Years Working On The Post Of Constable (Batch No. 140) 16th Battalion, Posted At 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, Distt- Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Ramudar Pandey S/o Late Avar Pandey Aged About 42 Years Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 150, Posted At 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, Distt- Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Abhishek Thakur S/o Ganesh Kumar Thakur Aged About 45 Years Working On The Post Of Constable (Batch No. 433), Posted At 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.06 10:42:21 +0530 2 Distt- Narayanpur (C.G.), Presently Attached At Police Head Quarter, New- Raipur, Distt- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 9 - Akhilesh Giri S/o Mukti Nath Giri Aged About 36 Years Working On The Post Of Constable (Batch No. 412) Posted At 16th Battalion (Indian Reserve Battalion) Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Orchha, Distt- Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Raipur Distt- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Commandant 16th Battalion Chhattisgarh Arms Force- Narayanpur, Distt- Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, P.L. appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 22.5.2014 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.3 in respects of petitioners. 3 10.2 Any, other reliefs may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed as Constables in the Police Department and were posted in the Naxal-affected areas. He further submitted that vide order dated 30.10.2004 respondent No. 1 issued a Circular and granted HRA @ 7% of basic salary to the Police employees who were posted in the Naxal-affected areas. He also submitted that vide order dated 22.05.2014, an order of recovery of HRA was issued by respondent No. 3 according to which, they are not entitled to get HRA. He further argued that the order passed by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala-fide, and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose. He submitted that the petitioners had submitted a declaration before the authorities to the effect that if any of the information is found false, the benefit may be withdrawn. He referred to the Circulars dated 19.04.2005, 05.09.2006 and 22.02.2010 in this regard. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 4 6. Admittedly, the petitioners are Police Constables. At the relevant time, they were posted in the Naxal-affected areas. As a sufficient number of Government accommodations were not available, the petitioners stayed in rented houses. A Circular was issued by the State Government on 30.10.2007, according to which the Police officials who are staying in rented houses would be entitled to get HRA. The petitioners were granted HRA by the department in the year 2011. This practice continued till 22.05.2014 and on that date, an order of recovery was issued by respondent No. 3. 7. The order granting the benefit of HRA to petitioners and other police officers was issued by the department itself and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioners. The benefit was extended according to the existing circulars; though a declaration was submitted by petitioners, in the absence of any rule concerning the submission of a declaration form, it would not be binding upon the petitioners. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that (i) the benefit of HRA was extended to the petitioners by the department itself; (ii) there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners; (iii) the petitioners are Class-III employees; and (iv) the order of recovery has been issued after 3 years, therefore it would iniquitous for them to refund the amounts. Thus, the order dated 22.05.2014 pertaining to the petitioners are hereby quashed. 5 9. If any amount as shown in the order dated 22.05.2014 has already been recovered, the same shall be refunded along with interest @ 8% p.a. to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 11. In view of above, I.A. No.01, an application for exemption from filing typed copy of Annexures is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh