Also Read - Karnataka High Court Seeks Objections on Closure Report in MUDA Land Scam Case

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.

Also Read - Rajasthan High Court Orders Immediate Medical Facilities in Jodhpur Sessions Court Complex After Lawyer's Death

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.

Also Read - Bombay High Court Grants Interim Protection from Arrest to Former TISS Student

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.

Also Read - Chief Justice of India Defends Law Students’ Right to Protest After Bar Council Freezes Enrolments