IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-39393-2025 Date of Decision : 08.01.2026 DEVENDER .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the memo/letters/orders dated 08.10.2025 and 07.11.2025 as well as 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-3, P-4 and P-8 respectively), wherethrough, the petitioner has been directed to vacate to government accommodation with immediate effect.

2. The case as set up before this Court by the petitioner is that he was allotted government accommodation on being appointed as Junior Engineer in the department of Public Health Engineering, Rohtak, way back on 16.11.2021 (Annexure P-1), and subsequently, his services were placed on deputation at the disposal of Sonepat Metropolitan Development Authorities, for three years vide office order dated

03.10.2025 (Annexure P-2). Consequent upon his transfer pursuant to the above office order, various notices were served upon the petitioner to vacate the government accommodation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned memo/letters/orders, submits that Rule 47 of the Haryana Civil Services (Allowances to Government Employees) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2016), entitles an employee to retain the government accommodation for two months, and further extendable for two months on medical grounds of self or any of the members of the family, or on the ground of education of children of the employee, subject to the approval of the authority competent to allot the accommodation. The relevant part of Rule 47 of the Rules of 2016 is reproduced hereinafter:-

47. Retention of Government Accommodation under various circumstances-

4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, though his representation (Annexure P-5) has been decided, however, none of the grounds mentioned therein, have been taken into consideration, specifically in view of Rule 47 of Rules of 2016.

5. He further submits that the grievance, as raised in the representation is general and on account of these reasons the petitioner is entitled to retain the government accommodation in question for another two months from today.

6. He undertakes before this Court that the petitioner will vacate the government accommodation on or before 28.02.2026, in case a mandamus is passed upon the respondents to decide his representation dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), afresh. He further submits that in case the said representation does not find favour, the authority concerned would be entitled to recover penal rent, subject to, him being afforded to take an alternate remedy against the said decision of the authority concerned.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana, who is on an advance, submits that the petitioner was ordered to vacate the government accommodation, way back on 14.11.2023, as the same was allotted to one Sh.Rajesh Kumar, SDE, therefore, now he cannot seek further extension of two months by taking aid of Rule 47 of Rules of

2016.

8. Since it is a specific stand of learned counsel for the petitioner, that he was never posted outside the District Rohtak, except him being placed on deputation vide order 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-2), therefore, his case ought to have been considered by the authority concerned, in view of Rule 47 of the Rules of 2016, which unfortunately, has not been considered. Consequently, the memo/letter/order (supra), is hereby set aside, and the authority concerned, is directed reconsider the matter in view of Rule 47 of the Rules of 2016, and to decide the representation dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) afresh.

9. In case the authority concerned does not find any merit in the representation (Annexure P-5), they are