IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 147 VEENA KUMARI STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR Present: Ms. Brea Sandhu, Advocate and Mr. Divij Datt, Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, The petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P 17) whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been staying in the premises for over 20 years and has referred to the disposal policy whereby she would be eligible for retaining the accommodation. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the co reason that the petitioner had overstayed in the of 2 years. She is stated to have government accommodation. petitioner to vacate the premises post her retirement accordance with law. We do not find any good ground to quash the impugned order. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits t petitioner will vacate the premises but would require a month’s time in this regard. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7097-2026 DATE OF DECISION: VEENA KUMARI Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Ms. Brea Sandhu, Advocate and Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P ) whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been in the premises for over 20 years and has referred to the disposal policy whereby she would be eligible for retaining the accommodation. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the co reason that the petitioner had overstayed in the official is stated to have retired on 31.01.2024 government accommodation. The impugned order dated petitioner to vacate the premises post her retirement accordance with law. We do not find any good ground to quash the impugned order. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits t petitioner will vacate the premises but would require a month’s time in this regard. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 09.03.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL DEEPAK MANCHANDA petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P ) whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises/staff quarter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been in the premises for over 20 years and has referred to the disposal policy whereby she would be eligible for retaining the accommodation. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner for the official accommodation for a period retired on 31.01.2024 but continues to stay in the The impugned order dated 05.03.2026 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises post her retirement appears to be justified and in accordance with law. We do not find any good ground to quash the impugned order. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will vacate the premises but would require a month’s time in this regard. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure P- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been in the premises for over 20 years and has referred to the disposal policy After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the ntention of the petitioner for the accommodation for a period in the directing the appears to be justified and in accordance with law. We do not find any good ground to quash the impugned order. hat the petitioner will vacate the premises but would require a month’s time in this regard. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.09 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7097-2026 (O&M) -2- 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and a retired employee, we deem it appropriate to direct that she would remain in the premises for one month only. The petitioner is directed to vacate the premises on or before 10.04.2026. In the event of the petitioner not vacating the premises on or before 10.04.2026, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate penal action in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also clear the outstanding dues, if any, within a period of one month from now. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 09.03.2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.09 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document