IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 491 of 2008. Decided on: 24th August, 2010. Shri Thakur Dass Seohi. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondent No. 5. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was allotted Government accommodation. He has retired from service on 30.11.2004. According to the rules, he could retain the Government accommodation only for a period of four months after retirement. However, he had overstayed by approximately two years more. 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record a copy of the instructions dated 26th July, 1993, whereby a conscious decision has been taken by the State Government not to charge penal rent from the employees who had overstayed in the Government accommodation by 26th July, 1993 and only double the normal rent was to be charged from these officers/officials. However, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has further brought to the notice of the Court that it was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. only one time relaxation and could not be made applicable to other employees. The State Government has not placed any tangible evidence on record to suggest even remotely that how there could be segregation only on the basis of cut of date, i.e., 26th July, 1993. The petitioner and the persons who had been given relaxation on the basis of letter dated 26th July, 1993, constitutes a homogeneous class. There cannot be any further division in this class. 3. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner, strictly as per letter dated 26th July, 1993, within a period of three months from today. The respondents have adjusted a sum of Rs.68,791/-, which was payable to the petitioner on account of leave encashment towards penal rent. In the eventuality of the petitioner’s case being considered as per the letter dated 26th July, 1993, the petitioner shall only be liable to pay double the normal rent and the remaining amount shall be refunded to him. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge 24th August, 2010. (bhupender)