IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 4714 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.08.2010 Krishan Bhanu Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). Petitioner is aggrieved since he has been directed to vacate his cottage, consequent on the withdrawal of the accreditation. Petitioner submits that he is presently working with other newspaper and he hopes to get the accreditation with that newspaper shortly. It is also submitted that he has made two representations Annexures P-3 and P-4 and at least he may be granted time upto 31st March, 2011 to vacate the premises. Though originally he has challenged amendment in the rules, in view of the weak basis for challenge, the same is not pressed. Yet, we may refer to that ground as well. The submission is that in the case of those government employees who have been transferred, there is a provision for retention of government accommodation, in special circumstances, whereas in the case of journalist, the same is not there. Journalists and government employees stand on a different footing. They belong to two different classes, with well defined distinctions. In the case of journalists, it is not transfer, but it is withdrawal of accreditation, whereas in the case of government employees, they continue to be government employees, despite their transfer. Therefore, the rule does not suffer from the vice of discrimination or wrong classification. It is also to be noted that as far as the government employees are concerned, the rules are framed under the Fundamental Rules, whereas there is no such source for legislation as far as the accommodation for journalists is concerned under the statute. Therefore, the allotment of government accommodation to a government employee cannot apply to the journalist. For them it is altogether different scheme as such. Faced with such situation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays that time may be granted to vacate the accommodation. He submits that petitioner has filed representations, Annexures P-3 and P-4 before the first respondent and the same are pending. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take action on those representations within a period of one month. Till action is taken, as above, the petitioner may not be dispossessed from the said accommodation. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice August 10, 2010(K) ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), Judge