IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

111 (I) CWP-25325-2025 Date of Decision : November 14, 2025 VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS (II) CWP-13903-2022 (O&M)

VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Both these writ petitions are amenable to being decided through a common verdict on account of theirs encompassing a common issue concerning the entitlement of the petitioners, who are government employees, to retain the allotted government accommodation.

2. The petitioner No.1- Vinod Kumar initially approached this Court by filing CWP-13903-2022, seeking directions to respondent No.3 to consider his application dated 28.12.2021 for allotment of Government Quarter B-12. The said accommodation had already been allotted to his wife Seema Rani - petitioner No.2, who was employed as a Judo Coach in the office of the District Sports and Youth Program Officer, Sirsa, and was subsequently transferred to the office of the Sports and Youth Program Officer, Fatehabad, vide order dated 16.11.2021.

3. The petitioner’s case rested on the contention that since both the petitioners are government employees, they are entitled to the same government accommodation. Though the petitioner No.2, the original allottee, had been transferred to Fatehabad, the petitioner No.1, being still posted within the territorial jurisdiction of Sirsa, was entitled to be considered for allotment of the same government accommodation in his name.

4. The grievance raised before this Court was that, without considering or deciding the petitioner No.1’s application regarding his entitlement to the said accommodation, the authorities initiated proceedings to impose penal rent on the petitioner No.2.

5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.08.2022, ordered to maintain status quo regarding possession, and as a result, the petitioners continue to occupy the government accommodation. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition (supra), the petitioner No.2 was served with recovery notices dated 23.04.2025 and 12.06.2025, whereby the authorities sought recovery of penal rent for retention of the accommodation despite cancellation of the allotment. Aggrieved by the recovery notices, the petitioners filed another CWP-

25325-2025 before this Court.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court had passed the following order on 04.09.2025:-

“Through the instant writ petition, as cast under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is thrown to the recovery notices dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure P-15), and 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-16), served upon petitioner No.2, vide which, penal rent has been imposed, for illegally occupying the government accommodation allotted to her.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the house in question was allotted to petitioner No.2, vide allotment letter dated 20.03.2020 (Annexure P-1). Whereafter, she was transferred from Sirsa to Fatehabad, and relinquished her charge on 16.11.2021. He further submits that her husband (petitioner No.1) was also staying with her, who was also entitled for the same category of accommodation, being a Government Lecturer, and both of them are not claiming HRA. He asserts that post transfer of petitioner No.2, her husband, vide application dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-4), made a request to the authorities concerned to allot him the same house, but, no order was passed thereon.

Fetching grievance from the aforesaid, petitioner No.1 filed CWP-13903-2022, wherein, a Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 09.08.2022, passed an order of status quo regarding possession of the house in question. In the interregnum, even petitioner No.2 has been transferred back to Sirsa, and thus, both the petitioners continue to stay