2025:HHC:23426 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2770 of 2024 Decided on: 21st July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Madhuri Dadwal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against respondents’ decision dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-13) to recover penal rent from her computed in Annexure P-5, dated 30.09.2022, at Rs.38,30,668/-. There are inter- departmental correspondences for withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner till No Objection Certificate is issued concerning recovery of penal rent from the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:23426 3. The case 3(i). Petitioner was appointed as General Duty Officer (GDO) in the respondent-Health & Family Welfare Department in May, 1989. She was posted as such at Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla. Petitioner thereafter did her Post Graduation in ENT Department at IGMC, Shimla. She was posted as GDO ENT Specialist in respondent No.3-DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla in 1997. During the interregnum, petitioner completed her Registrarship from ENT Department in IGMC, Shimla and thereafter joined duties as ENT Specialist in respondent No.3-Hospital. The said post was re-designated as Assistant Professor on 16.01.2009. Petitioner’s services were subsequently regularized as Assistant Professor. She was thereafter promoted as Associate Professor and further promoted as Professor ENT at IGMC, Shimla on 04.07.2021. In nutshell, the petitioner performed her duties at respondent No.3-DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla till 2004 and thereafter served in IGMC, Shimla. 3(ii). While serving at respondent No.3-Hospital, government accommodation was allotted to the petitioner in the year 2001. Petitioner continued to occupy this accommodation while serving in IGMC, Shimla as well. 3 2025:HHC:23426 During the entire period, petitioner paid license fee/ monthly rent etc. in terms of the applicable Rules for allotment of the said accommodation to her. Neither any penal rent was levied upon the petitioner for her continued occupation of the government accommodation nor any notice was ever issued to her by the respondents that she having been employed at IGMC, Shimla, was required to vacate the premises occupied by her at DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla. It is the case set up by the petitioner that after her posting at IGMC, Shimla, she had applied for government accommodation in the year 2004, but the same was not provided to her presumably on the ground that she had already been allotted government accommodation at respondent No.3-Hospital. 3(iii). The first notice ever issued to the petitioner for vacating the government residential accommodation was dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure P-1). The said notice was issued by respondent No.3-the Chief Medical Officer, DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla. As per the notice, a meeting of House Allotment Committee of respondent No.3 was convened on 02.11.2020. The Committee considered the fact that the petitioner had been allotted government accommodation in respondent No.3-Hospital when she was 4 2025:HHC:23426 posted in the said institution. Considering that the petitioner had since been transferred and posted in other health institution in Shimla and also the shortage of accommodations for staff of respondent No.3-Hospital performing COVID-19 duties, petitioner was directed to vacate the accommodation within one month, failing which, appropriate proceedings were to be initiated against her for getting the same vacated with imposition of penal rent as per rules. 3(iv). Petitioner responded to the aforesaid notice on 13.11.2020 (Annexure P-2), inter alia, pleading that she had been discharging duties in the respondent-Health Department. She had not been allotted any accommodation either by IGMC Management or by the Director Estates, H.P. Secretariat, even though she had applied long back. Petitioner requested for withdrawing the notice. 3(v). Respondent No.3 issued another notice to the petitioner on 01.10.2021 (Annexure P-3) for vacating the government residential accommodation within a period of one month, failing which proceedings were to be initiated in accordance with law for getting the premises vacated with imposition of penal rent as per rules. Petitioner replied to 5 2025:HHC:23426 the same on 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) seeking withdrawal of the notice. 3(vi). Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. It is an admitted position that petitioner was given extension in service from time to time. She is still stated to be rendering service as a fall out of extension accorded in her favour by the respondents and is presently serving the respondent-Health Department as Head of Department (HoD), ENT at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar Government Medical College, Nahan. It has also come on record that the petitioner vacated the government accommodation allotted to her in respondent No.3-Hospital on 12.09.2022. 3(vii). On 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.3 addressed a communication to the Principal, IGMC, Shimla, computing the penal rent to be recovered from the petitioner at Rs.38,30,668/- and for withholding her retiral benefits till the No Objection Certificate (NOC) is issued in that regard. 3(viii). From the documents placed on record, it appears that some intra-departmental correspondences were exchanged between different authorities. As a consequence of the same, respondent No.2-the Director 6 2025:HHC:23426 Medical Education, Himachal Pradesh wrote to respondent No.1-the Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 21.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) that the petitioner had performed duties in ENT Department of IGMC, Shimla as also in DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla. Both the hospitals are located in Shimla. Petitioner had occupied government accommodation at DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla legally. Giving some other factual details of the case, respondent No.2 recommended sympathetic consideration of the case of the petitioner to respondent No.1 for waiving off the penal rent imposed upon her for occupying government accommodation at DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla. 3(ix). Respondent No.1 issued an office letter on 21.11.2022 (Annexure P-7), conveying the decision of the State Government granting ex-post facto approval in favour of petitioner’s retaining the government accommodation at DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla w.e.f. March, 2004 to 14.09.2022. Relevant portion of the said office letter reads as under:- “From The Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To The Director Medical Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9. 7 2025:HHC:23426 Dated Shimla-2 21/11/2022 Subject: Regarding panel rent of Govt. accommodation (DDU house accommodation) of Dr. Madhuri Dhadwal, Professor & Head (ENT) Dr. YSPGMC Nahan may be waived off. Sir, I am directed to directed to refer to your letter No.HFW (DME)H(1)NHC/Faculty/15-Vol-VI-loose-8319, dated 20-09-2022 on the subject cited above and to convey the ex- post facto approval of the Government for retaining the Government accommodation i.e. DDU ZH Shimla CMO residence Block, 1st Floor in favour of Dr. Madhuri Dhadwal, Professor & Head (ENT), Dr. YSPGMC Nahan w.e.f. March 2004 to 14-09- 2022 as she was not allotted any other departmental accommodation and has served IGMC and has provided essential and emergency services in the hospital. You are therefore, requested to take action accordingly in the matter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Endst. No.HFW-B(B)(3)-2/2012 Dated Shimla-2, -11-2022 Copy for information and necessary action is forwarded to Chief Medical Officer, Shimla District, H.P. Sd/- Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” 3(x). The copy of aforesaid office letter was communicated to respondent No.3 as well. In fact, respondent No.2 also communicated the above decision of the State Government to respondent No.3 on 26.11.2022 (Annexure P-8). It appears instead of putting an end to the matter, respondent No.3 again kept it alive and sent a letter on 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-11) to respondent No.1. In the aforesaid letter, after giving reference to the ex-post facto 8 2025:HHC:23426 approval given by the Government in favour of the petitioner for retaining the government accommodation at DDU Zonal Hospital, Shimla, respondent No.3 requested respondent No.1 to ‘convey the waive off status of the penal rent worth Rs.38,30,668/-’ for the period in question. In response to this communication, respondent No.1 came up with office letter dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-13), impugned herein, conveying that the matter had been ‘examined at Government level and it has been decided to recover the penal rent levied on Dr. Madhuri Dhadwal, Professor (ENT), Dr. YSPGMC Nahan as per the Rules’. 4. During hearing of the case, learned Deputy Advocate General did not dispute the fact that the respondent-State Government had granted ex-post facto approval in favour of the petitioner on 21.11.2022 (Annexure P-7) for retaining the government accommodation at respondent No.3-Hospital w.e.f. March, 2004 to 14.09.2022. This has otherwise been specifically pleaded by the petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition. The reply filed by the respondents thereto simply states that ‘the documents are not disputed, being based on record’. Once existence of Annexure P-7 is admitted, whereby ex-post facto approval was granted by the Government for 9 2025:HHC:23426 retaining the government accommodation in question in favour of the petitioner by specifically covering the period w.e.f. March, 2004 to 14.09.2022, it defies logic that the respondents still intend to recover penal rent from the petitioner for occupation of the same very premises and for the period in question. It is not the case of the respondents that ex-post facto approval has been withdrawn by the State. The approval still stands. It was accorded by the competent authority. Once the petitioner has been accorded ex-post facto approval for retaining the premises allotted to her for the period in question, then for the same accommodation and for the same period, penal rent cannot be imposed upon the petitioner. Even if her continuation in the accommodation for the period is to be construed as not in consonance with the rules at the relevant time, the same, however, has certainly become legal after grant of ex-post facto approval by the Government. In view of ex-post facto approval sanctioned in petitioner’s favour vide Annexure P-7, the other grounds urged by the respondents for imposing penal rent upon the petitioner for her occupation of the government accommodation fade into oblivion. The other pleadings in the reply of the respondents, which have not even been urged during hearing, become 10 2025:HHC:23426 inconsequential and loose their relevance. Penal rent for occupying the government accommodation for the period in question cannot be levied upon the petitioner in the given facts and ex-post facto approval granted to her. The foundation on the basis of which penal rent was sought to be imposed upon the petitioner, has ceased to exist. It has been removed by the State by legalizing petitioner’s stay in the government accommodation. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned communication dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-13) is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 21, 2025 Judge Mukesh