1 CGHC010311332023 2026:CGHC:31028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7655 of 2023 Gopal Prasad Naik S/o Girdhari Lal Naik Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Principal At Government Polytechnic, Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh, R/o House No.0973, Indraprasth Colony Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Home Department (House Allotment Section) Mantralaya Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Secretary Home Department (House Allotment Section) Mantralaya Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Secretary Department Of Technical Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Director Technical Education Directorate Of Technical Education Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Principal Govt. Girls Polytechnic Campus Byron Bazar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyers (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.07.23 10:12:01 +0530 2 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21.7.2023 (Annexure- P/1), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit penal rent in respect of Government accommodation bearing No.F-6 for the period from 10.07.2014 to 23.03.2023 to the tune of Rs.16,60,490/- on the ground that he had illegally occupied said Government accommodation at Raipur. 3. Brief facts of the case, are that in the year 2003, while the petitioner was posted as Deputy Director (Technical Education), in the Directorate of Technical Education, Raipur, he was allotted Government accommodation bearing No.F-6 vide Order dated 01.10.2003 (Anenxure-P/2). Thereafter the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Government Polytechnic College, Janjgir Champa to the post of Lecturer with additional charge of Principal vide order dated 10.7.2014 (Annexure-P/3) and pursuant thereto, he was relieved from Raipur vide Order dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure-P/4). However, owing to the ongoing counselling/admission process for the academic session 2014, he continued on attachment at Raipur. Finally he was relieved on 17.10.2014 (Annexure-P/5) to join the post of Lecturer at Government Polytechnic College, Janjgir-Champa. However, despite his transfer and relieving, the petitioner did not vacate the Government accommodation bearing No. F-6 situated in the Girls Polytechnic Campus, Raipur, until 23.03.2023, when he finally handed over possession of the said accommodation. Consequently, vide impugned order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was directed to pay penal rent amounting to Rs.16,60,490/- for the period from 10.07.2014 to 23.03.2023 on account of his unauthorized occupation of the aforesaid Government accommodation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner remained in occupation of the aforesaid Government accommodation until 3 March, 2023, no show-cause notice was ever issued to him prior to March, 2023. It is contended that, for the first time, a show-cause notice (Annexure P/7) was issued on 17.03.2023, whereupon the petitioner immediately vacated the Government accommodation on 23.03.2023. It is further submitted that up to February, 2023, an amount of Rs.210/- per month was regularly deducted from the petitioner's salary towards house rent for the Government accommodation. It is also submitted that the petitioner regularly paid the water and electricity charges during the period of his occupation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was no deliberate fault on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned recovery order (Annexure P/1) be quashed. 5. The State has filed its reply. Referring to its reply, learned counsel for the State submits that as per the Rule 17(1) of Government Housing Allotment Rules, 2000 (for short ‘the Rules 2000’), if any officer/employee is transferred to other place, he is not entitled to occupy Government accommodation, then it his duty to inform this fact, else after one week he has to pay penal rent i.e. double the market value. It is further submitted that the petitioner was finally relieved from Raipur on 17.10.2014 vide Annexure P/5. Despite his relieving, he neither informed the competent authority about his continued occupation of the Government accommodation nor sought permission for its retention. Instead, he continued to occupy the accommodation unauthorizedly till 23.03.2023, when he vacated the same pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure P/7). Therefore, since the petitioner remained in unauthorized occupation of the Government accommodation from 17.10.2014 till 23.03.2023, the impugned recovery order (Annexure P/1) has rightly been passed in accordance with the Rules, 2000. 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Rule 17(1) of the Government Housing Allotment Rules, 2000 reads thus:- 17. शासकीय अधि कीरिय /कीर्मचारिय की आवास खने की अनेर्मति. - (1) तिकीस अधि की एवा कीर्मचा की भोपाल स अन्यत्र स्थानेण होने, सवातिनेवा%त्त होने, त्यगपात्र देने, सवा स पा%थकी+ कीने एवा अन्य तिकीन्हो, कीण स आवास खने की लिलए अनेधि की%  होने स आवाटि/ की यहो देधियत्वा होग तिकी यहो उसकी स1चाने सचालकी, सपादे सचालनेलय की एकी सप्हो की अदे दे, अन्यथ शासकीय आवास की उसस बाजा दे की दुगने दे स लयस6स शाल्की वास1ल तिकीय जाएग वा आवा/ने तिनेस् की टिदेय जावाग। xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Government Polytechnic College, Janjgir-Champa, vide order dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure P/3), and that he was finally relieved from Raipur on 17.10.2014 vide Annexure P/5. It is also not in dispute that he did not vacate the Government accommodation at Raipur until 23.03.2023 and that the first show-cause notice (Annexure P/7) requiring him to vacate the accommodation was issued only on 17.03.2023. 9. When a specific query was put to the learned State counsel as to whether any notice had been issued to the petitioner prior to 17.03.2023 requiring him to vacate the accommodation, he submitted that no such notice had ever been issued. 10. It is surprising that the petitioner remained in unauthorized occupation of Government accommodation for nearly nine years after his relieving, the 5 competent authority did not initiate any proceedings against him during this period and issued first notice only in March 2023. This fact shows some ulterior motive on the part of the competent authority, which sought to take action against the petitioner on account of his failure to vacate the government accommodation. 11. Annexure-P/10 (Page No.30 to 39) show that an amount of Rs.210/- per month was deducted from the petitioner’s salary towards house rent. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said deduction pertained to the Government accommodation at Raipur, cannot be accepted. A perusal of Annexure P/10 clearly reveals that the deduction was made by the office of the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Janjgir- Champa and not by the Directorate at Raipur. 12. Deduction of the house rent from the salary of the petitioner by the DDO Janjgir Champa shows that the petitioner was occupying the Government accommodation at Janjgir Champa also, however, both the DDO i.e. Janjgir Champa and Raipur are distinct authorities and therefore, the deduction cannot be attributed to the accommodation at Raipur. This clearly establishes that even after his transfer and relieving from Raipur, the petitioner continued to occupy the Government accommodation at Raipur without any authority from 17.10.2014 until 23.03.2023, therefore, imposing penal rent upon the petitioner is fully justified. 13. However, it is evident that the respondent authorities remained completely inactive for nearly nine years and failed to initiate any action for eviction or recovery until issuance of the show-cause notice dated 17.03.2023, therefore, having considered the Article 52 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the respondent authorities cannot recover arrears of rent or penal rent for the Government accommodation from the petitioner for a period prior to 6 three years from the date of eviction of government accommodation. Accordingly, the respondents shall be entitled to recover penal rent only for the period commencing from February, 2020 till 23.03.2023, i.e., the date on which the petitioner vacated the Government accommodation. 14. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed in part. Impugned Order dated 21.7.2023 (Annexure-P/1) is quashed to the extent it directs recovery of said penal rent from the petitioner for the period prior to February 2020. In other words, it is held that the petitioner shall be liable to pay penal rent on said government accommodation only for the period from February 2020 to till 23.03.2023, the date on which he vacated the government accommodation. 15. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs. 16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini