'They Are Working For You & You Are Telling Their Women & Children To Go Out?': Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief To CAPF Personnel Seeking Extension Of GPRA

The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed qua the Petitioners till next date, an OM requiring families of CAPF personnel posted in 'harsh areas' since more than three years, to vacate the General Pool Residential Accommodation in Delhi (allotted to them during posting of the Petitioners in the national capital).

The plea was filed on behalf of 70 CAPF(Central Armed Police Forces) personnel through Advocate Arvind Kumar Shukla.

"They are working for you and you are telling their women and children to go out? You are the custodian of interest of not only those in service but also of their families, who are living alone," observed Chief Justice DN Patel while granting the interim relief.

The Chief Justice added,

"You have to see the difficulty of common men. As lawyers or Judges, we never even have to stand in a queue. But these people are not getting leaves to shift their families."

The Bench also comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a writ petition filed by 70 CAPF personnel, posted in harsh/ "non-family areas" like Tripura, Jammu and Kashmir, etc. They stated that their families have been residing in the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) in Delhi. However, Rule 43 of the General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017 restrict the period of retention of GPRA at the last place of posting in case of posting in non-family stations to a maximum of 3 years. The impugned OM was issued in pursuance of the same.

During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that the Petitioners have been posted in "non-family" areas since more than three years. For instance, the Petitioner No. 1 was posted in Tripura and has remained there since 2016.

"You are posting them at harsh station for more than 3 years. Should the family stay on footpath?" the Bench asked the Respondent's counsel Nawal Kishore Jha, who was appearing on advance notice.

The Bench was informed that earlier two similar petitions were filed and considering the plight of the Petitioners therein, GPRA retention period was extended till June 30, 2021.

However, the Bench responded that if the jawans are being posted in harsh areas for 4-7 years then their families should also be allowed to stay in the accommodation previously allotted.

It advised the Respondents that it may change the accommodations if extremely necessary. However, they should be moved to a good place where they can study, get medical faculties. "See the difficulty of people who are serving the nation," the Court remarked.

It added,

"You are asking wives and children to go out of town. Where will they go? You are not giving the jawans leave also to find a house for their families. Its very difficult to find a house in Delhi or any other big city…"

Accordingly, the Bench issued notice to the Respondents, returnable on September 17. Further, it ordered:

"We hereby stay the operation, implementation and execution of OA No. 22019/2020-COI-II dated 4/3/2021, which restricts the period of General pool residential accommodation beyond 30 June, 2021 insofar as it restricts the period of retention of GPRA for the present Petitioners, especially keeping in mind the fact that Petitioners are working at harsh stations also known as "non-family stations" for example Tripura, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, etc.

Moreover it also appears from the facts that they are working at non-family stations since last more than 4/5/7 years. The Petitioner No. 5 has been working at Kupwara, J&K since 2007 onwards. Prima facie it appears that their families, staying at earlier accommodation given by the Respondent, should be continued at least till the next date because these Petitioner cannot take their family members at the places were they are serving.

The period of service is more than 3 years but house accommodation is extended only for 3 years. But the fact remains that these Petitioners are working at non-family stations. Prima facie case is in favour of the Petitioners. Balance of convenience is also in favour of Petitioners. Irreparable loss will be caused to the Petitioner if the impugned OA is not stayed till the next date."

As the Court granted interim relief, Jha stated that the order may have a ripple effect and numerous petitions will be filed after this.

"If you're keeping 3000 jawans at harsh station, you have to accommodate their families in different cities. Not all of them in Delhi, at different places. You have to see the difficulty of common men. As lawyers or Judges, we never even have to stand in a queue. But these people are not getting leaves to shift their families," the Court remarked.

Case Title: Inspector Min Gajendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India