2026:HHC:16704 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8608 of 2025 Decided on: 13.05.2026 Sher Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. That the communication dated 17.01.2025 contained in Annexure P-6 communication dated and 11.10.2024 Annexure P-8 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. II. That the respondents may kindly be directed not to recover the amount of penalty amounting to Rs. 1,43,476/- from the petitioner by issuing a writ of mandamus.” 2. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order, in terms whereof, the respondents have ordered the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,43,476/- on account of unauthorized retention of Government accommodation by the petitioner w.e.f. October, 2023 to August, 2024. Though, learned Counsel for the petitioner made an endeavour to justify the conduct of the petitioner, but he could not 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16704 do so. Obviously, as the public premises were allotted to the petitioner on account of the petitioner being posted at the relevant station, he was bound to have had vacated the same within the time frame as is permissible under the relevant Rules, once he stood transferred from the said station. His continuous occupation on the said posting beyond the period to which he was entitled to amounts to unauthorized occupation of the Government residential accommodation and he has to bear the outcome thereof. 3. Thus, as this Court does not find any illegality in the act of the respondents of demanding rent on penal rate from the petitioner for the period in issue, however, taking a lenient view in the matter, this petition is disposed of with the direction that instead of Rs.1,43,476/-, as agreed by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall pay the Authority an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- in all. 4. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 13, 2026 (Rishi)