The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed an inquiry against the officers or officials concerned for allegedly permitting a Medical Officer to retain earmarked government accommodation in Hamirpur for more than a decade after his transfer from the district. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the continued retention of the accommodation would not have been possible without the concerned officials being 'hand in glove' with the petitioner.
The petitioner, Dr. Narender Kumar Bhardwaj, a Medical Officer, was allotted a Type-IV departmental government accommodation at Hamirpur in July 2016. He was subsequently transferred to Shimla in 2017. Following his transfer, he sought permission to retain the accommodation on the grounds that his wife was serving in District Hamirpur and their child was studying there. He continued to make representations for retention of the accommodation.
In August and October 2023, the authorities directed him to deposit damage charges amounting to Rs. 12,90,959, calculated from November 2017. Aggrieved by this demand, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The Court held that the accommodation allotted to the petitioner was not part of the common pool but was earmarked specifically for Medical Officers and above-ranked officers posted in District Hamirpur. Since the petitioner's wife was not a doctor, she could not have been eligible for allotment of such accommodation under the relevant rules.
The Court further held that after his transfer from Hamirpur in 2017, the petitioner was legally bound to vacate the accommodation after the expiry of the permissible retention period. His continued possession beyond that period was unauthorized and without legal sanction.
The Court found that the petitioner's retention of the earmarked accommodation for more than a decade warranted an inquiry against the concerned officers or officials who had allowed him to continue occupying it despite knowing that he was no longer entitled to do so.
The Court held that the authorities were justified in directing the petitioner to deposit the damage charges and were also entitled to recover penal rent or damage charges from the date of unauthorized occupation until the premises were vacated.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000. The case is titled Dr. Narender Kumar Bhardwaj v/s State of H.P. & Ors., bearing CWP No. 9187 of 2023, and the decision was delivered on 29.07.2026.
The Court emphasized that the initiation of an inquiry is necessary to fix responsibility on the officials who facilitated the unauthorized retention, as their conduct appears to have violated established allotment and vacating norms governing government accommodation.
The order underscores the principle that earmarked accommodation, once allotted to a specific category of officers, cannot be retained beyond the permissible period post-transfer, and any deviation must be scrutinized for potential misconduct or collusion.