IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 2303 of 2008 Decided on : 04.05.2010 Subhash Chand ..…Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh through …… Respondents. Secretary (Rural Development and Panchayati Raj) and others. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) Heard. The petition is disposed of with the following observations/directions:- 1. Apparently, the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as driver in the Block Development Office, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, was transferred from Paonta Sahib to Nahan, in the month of October, 1992. At Paonta Sahib, he was allotted Government accommodation, which he did not vacate after the permissible period, for which he could have retained the same after transfer and over stayed therein upto June, 1994, when he finally vacated the said accommodation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No. 2 2. On account of the above default, the petitioner has been Imposed penalty by way of penal rent in the sum of Rs. 25,341/-. He is seeking indulgence of this court on the strength of instructions circulated vide letter dated 26.7.1993, which provide, inter alia, that instead of penal rent, double the normal rent may be charged from those officers/officials, who had though over stayed in the official accommodation allotted in their favour, yet had vacated the same till date, that is, 26.7.1993. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had not vacated the accommodation in question by 26.7.1993 and in fact the same came to be vacated by him only in June, 1994. 3. Against the above backdrop, though this court is constrained in granting the prayer of the petitioner in remitting the amount of the aforesaid penal rent, particularly in view of the recital contained in the aforesaid letter dated 26.7.1993, that the decision arrived at there-under will not be considered as a precedent. However, the matter is left to the discretion and wisdom of the respondents, particularly respondents No. 1 and 2, to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the instructions issued vide the aforesaid letter dated 26.7.1993, for grant of remission of the aforesaid penal rent of Rs. 25,341/- and instead resort to payment of double the normal rent. While doing 3 so, the latest instructions in the matter, if any, shall also be kept in view. 3. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 4. Pending CMP, if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 4th May, 2010. Lsp*