Delhi High Court Upholds Three Year GPRA Retention Cap For CAPF | Rule 43 Not Arbitrary | Courts Must Maintain Balance Between Competing Rights And Interests
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla held and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the restriction imposed by Rule 43 of the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017 (CGGPRA Rules), limiting the retention of government housing by Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel to a maximum of three years upon transfer to non-family stations, is not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed a consolidated batch of writ petitions challenging this rule and associated Office Memoranda issued by the Directorate of Estates
The petitioners in the present case were personnel belonging to various Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) including the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and others. These officers were posted in non-family stations under challenging conditions, often in remote areas away from their families. The core grievance raised was against Rule 43 of the CGGPRA Rules, which capped the maximum duration for which CAPF personnel could retain General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) at their last place of posting to three years.
Historically, the Central Government allowed such personnel to retain GPRA until the end of the academic session for their children, especially when transferred to non-family stations like the North East Region, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Jammu & Kashmir, and Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) affected areas. These allowances were granted based on policy decisions of the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation (CCA) through a series of Office Memoranda (OMs) issued from 1998 onward, which acknowledged the hardship of postings in such regions.
By an OM dated 14.07.2010, paramilitary personnel were permitted to retain GPRA for their families or claim additional HRA. These benefits were extended periodically until 2018. However, after the enactment of the CGGPRA Rules on 16.06.2017, Rule 43 imposed a cap of three years for such retention, regardless of continued posting in non-family stations.
The petitioners contended that this cap was arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly because CAPF personnel, unlike civilian officers, often face back-to-back postings in multiple non-family stations, leaving them separated from their families for extended durations without relief.
The petitioners relied on a series of correspondences to support their claim that the cap was not appropriate. These included letters dated 04.02.2021 from the Director General of CRPF and 06.02.2018 from the Union Home Minister to the Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs. The Home Minister's letter specifically suggested extending the accommodation retention period beyond three years for CAPF personnel. The petitioners further cited an assurance from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs that an amendment to Rule 43 would be considered, as communicated in a letter dated 01.03.2018.
Despite these communications, the Directorate of Estates issued OM No. 22019/1/2020-POI-II dated 04.03.2021, rejecting all representations and upholding Rule 43. The petitioners were directed to vacate the GPRA accommodations and, in some cases, were subjected to penal rent assessments for overstay.
These developments prompted the filing of several writ petitions, clubbed together in W.P.(C) 7486/2021, challenging Rule 43 and the OM dated 04.03.2021. The primary reliefs sought included striking down Rule 43 as unconstitutional, setting aside the OM, and restraining the Directorate of Estates from taking coercive action or levying penalties until the petition was adjudicated.
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the CGGPRA Rules, related Office Memoranda, constitutional provisions, and the principles governing judicial review. Referring to the rule-making authority under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Bench stated "Statutory law and Rules govern the allotment of government accommodation... government employees have a reasonable right of being considered fairly for receiving benefits that are to be granted under the Allotment Rules."
The petitioners’ main argument—that Rule 43 violated Article 14 of the Constitution by treating CAPF personnel and civilian employees alike—was considered in depth. The Court acknowledged the special conditions under which CAPF personnel operate but noted: "Rule 43... cannot be held to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14... as the same has been framed upon due consideration of all relevant factors."
The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, observing that "equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch." Applying this principle, the Court assessed whether Rule 43’s uniform three-year cap was manifestly arbitrary and concluded it was not.
Further referencing Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Court stated: "In order to strike down a delegated legislation as arbitrary it has to be established that there is manifest arbitrariness... it must be shown that it was not reasonable and manifestly arbitrary."
The Court also examined administrative data regarding the GPRA housing stock in Delhi. It noted a substantial mismatch between demand and availability, with a shortage in most categories. The Bench recorded: "Around 8.68% of the total GPRA housing stock in Delhi is already occupied by CAPF personnel... permitting unlimited retention would lead to deprivation of accommodation for other eligible Central Government employees."
Regarding the argument that additional HRA was inadequate, the Court responded: "Mere grant of additional HRA after completion of three years does not adequately address the core issue... however, the scheme allows personnel to make suitable arrangements and mitigates hardship within the limits of policy."
The Court stated judicial restraint in reviewing policy matters, stating: "Courts must exercise restraint and refrain from interfering with policy decisions or statutory rules framed by the State, so long as they are not unconstitutional, irrational, or manifestly arbitrary."
The Court declined to interfere with Rule 43 or the OM dated 04.03.2021. In the operative portion of the judgment, it stated: "We do not find any merit in the pleas raised by the petitioners. The present petitions, along with pending applications, if any, are therefore dismissed."
On the matter of penalties imposed for unauthorized retention, the Court stated: "We, under our limited jurisdiction, are not inclined to adjudicate the said prayer... the petitioners are at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Competent Authority in accordance with the law and applicable Rules."
Addressing the prayer for general relaxation under Rule 83 of the CGGPRA Rules, the Court clarified: "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."
Regarding jurisdiction, the Court recorded that all parties submitted affidavits consenting to its territorial jurisdiction despite a Supreme Court transfer order in a related matter. The Court stated: "The parties have filed their respective affidavits submitting that they have no objection and submit to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the present batch of petitions."
Case Title: Inspector (Min) Gajendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5076-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7486/2021 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla , Justice Shalinder Kaur
