Delhi High Court Upholds CAPF Policy Allowing Retention of General Pool Accommodation Up to Three Years for Harsh Station Postings

In a well-reasoned judgment, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the validity of Rule 43 under the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017, along with associated office memoranda (OMs), which permit Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) personnel posted to non-family or “harsh” stations to retain their GPRA at their last family station for up to three years. This decision settles ongoing debate over whether CAPF personnel ought to enjoy accommodation benefits beyond three years or even indefinitely.

The petitioners—serving CAPF officers—challenged Rule 43, contending it was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued that postings to non-family stations, including insurgency-prone areas, could—and often did—exceed three years, thereby penalizing them unfairly if their families had to vacate secure family accommodations. They traced the evolution of GPRA retention policy through successive OMs dating back to the late 1990s, which had allowed extended or indefinite retention when personnel were posted to remote areas like North-East, Jammu & Kashmir, or Left Wing Extremism zones. This, they said, reflected recognition of the unique hardships borne by CAPF families.

Respondents from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and Directorate of Estates justified Rule 43 as ensuring equitable access to a severely limited government housing stock. They emphasized that the rule—which tied retention to a maximum of three years—aligned with typical postings for civilian central government employees. CAPF petitioners, however, faced prolonged deployments exceeding that three‑year norm. Respondents also noted alternate arrangements such as payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA) outside GPRA as being available .

In its analysis, the Court acknowledged the distinctive service conditions of CAPF personnel, often stationed in extremely remote or hostile environments without their families. It agreed that an outright cap of three years disproportionately disadvantaged officers whose postings continued beyond that period—forcing their families to either relocate under strenuous circumstances or pay for private rentals in urban settings. The Court found merit in the petitioners’ argument that Rule 43 failed to account for the realities of CAPF deployments .

Reflecting this understanding, the Court issued an ad‑interim injunction. It stayed the operation of the implicated provisions—specifically the three‑year limit imposed by Rule 43 and the associated show‑cause notices—thus safeguarding petitioners from eviction until a full hearing could decide on the constitutional questions. The Court highlighted the welfare duty of the State to prevent “grave hardship” to families of CAPF officers, particularly during emergencies like the COVID‑19 pandemic where rental markets were volatile.

The judgment also recognized the parallel administrative approach, dating back to successive OMs, that had evolved to treat CAPF personnel differently from civilian central servants. Such evolution, the Court suggested, reinforced the reasonableness of exempting CAPF from rigid application of Rule 43’s cap.

In the near term, CAPF families currently posted to non-family stations will remain undisturbed in their GPRA allotments, at least until the matters are fully argued. The judgment paves the way for a final determination on whether permanent deviation from the three‑year rule is warranted based on service reality and welfare considerations. The State’s commitment to hearing representations underlines the ongoing administrative review of this sensitive policy matter.

Implications of the ruling:

Short-term relief for CAPF families: The interim stay ensures that families of personnel in remote postings won’t be forced to vacate GPRA within the arbitrary three-year window, preserving their security and continuity.
Confirmation of policy evolution: The Court explicitly recognized the legitimacy of past OMs extending GPRA retention for CAPF personnel, anchoring interpretation in service context rather than rigid rule application.
Potential constitutional shift: If upheld, the petition could force revision of Rule 43 or its administrative implementation, potentially granting indefinite retention rights for CAPF families in non-family stations.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court has taken a humane and context-sensitive stance. By staying the enforcement of the three-year limit under Rule 43, the Court has acknowledged the outliers faced by CAPF officers and placed emphasis on equitable and welfare-oriented policy application. The true outcome will hinge on further hearings but the current direction underscores a judicial preference for flexibility over rigid bureaucracy when public safety duty and family welfare intersect.