13.3.2009 Present: Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. for the respondents. CWP(T) No.3892/2008 (OA No.1811/96) In effect the petitioner is seeking directions that the respondents be directed to waive off the penal rent amounting to Rs.45,718/-, for the same being contrary to the Governmental order dated 26.7.1993 (Annexure A-3). While working as Junior Engineer, petitioner was allotted Govt. accommodation at Una. He was transferred to various places including Kinnaur. However, inspite of his transfer to different places, he refused to vacate the accommodation allotted to him. The petitioner undertook to vacate the premises before the Financial Commissioner in July, 1987 but, however, inspite of the orders dated 24.11.1997 passed by the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner dated 11.5.1988, he did not vacate the premises. To the contrary, he filed a civil suit for temporary injunction before the Civil Court restraining the Govt. from taking action against him. Interim order was passed in his favour, which was vacated on 6.10.1988 by the Sub Judge (2), Una. Inspite of the same he did not handover possession of the allotted premises to the State but filed an appeal before the District Judge which also stood dismissed on 19.9.1990. The matter did not rest there and the petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 555/90 which also stood decided in terms of order dated 20.3.1991 by this Court, wherein it was observed that the Govt. may consider the allotment of accommodation on ‘out of turn’ basis if the Rules otherwise permitted. This Court further directed that in the event of accommodation not being allotted, the petitioner would vacate the premises within a period of six weeks. The State saw no reasons to, either grant extension or make fresh allotment and consequently, the petitioner was asked to vacate the premises. Instead of complying with the directions, petitioner rushed to this Court and filed yet another writ being Civil Writ Petition No. 436/1991 titled as Bhagwan Kishore vs. State of H.P. While dismissing the said writ petition, this Court on 25.9.1991 observed that the petitioner was not entitled to any discretionary relief. It was only after the dismissal of the same that the petitioner handed over the possession of the vacant premises to the State. For such of that period for which the petitioner’s occupancy of the allotted accommodation was unauthorized, the State levied penal rent amounting to Rs.45,718/-. In the present proceedings no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner staying the recovery of the said amount. He has assailed the action only on the ground that the levy of penal rent is contrary to the Governmental order (Annexure A-3). The contents of the same are reproduced as under:- “On the aforesaid subject, I am directed to say that the government has decided to give rebate with regard to penal rent in special cases on the aforesaid subject. But this decision will only be applicable if the tenant/allottee has vacated the accommodation till now. Double the normal rent shall be recovered from such officers/ employees. This decision shall not be considered as a precedent and no rebate shall be given in future.” Perusal of the same would show that the Govt. took the decision to give special rebate to such allottees, who had vacated the accommodation on or before 1993. However, the benefit of rebate with regard to penal rent was to be given only in special cases. In the present case, the petitioner did not voluntarily hand over the premises. He unauthorizedly continued to occupy the general pool accommodation allotted to him for more than a period of 4 years. He did his level best to retain the premises for as much period as he could. He not only dragged the State to defend the litigation in different Courts but also deprived the other employees of their right of user. They were waiting to be allotted the said accommodation. In my considered view, the petitioner’s case does not fall within the scope of ‘special case’ deserving rebate of penal rent. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 13, 2009 (rana)