Doctor Held Earmarked Quarters for a Decade After Transfer; HP High Court Orders Inquiry Into Official Connivance
Himachal Pradesh High Court dismisses a Medical Officer's plea to retain Government Accommodation at Hamirpur, finding he occupied earmarked quarters for over ten years after his transfer while simultaneously drawing a second Government residence at Shimla.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 29 July 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr. Narender Kumar Bhardwaj, a senior officer in the Himachal Pradesh Health Services, who had challenged orders demanding he pay damage charges of Rs. 12,90,959 for retaining Government Accommodation at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur long after his transfer out of the district. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, sitting singly, found that the accommodation was earmarked exclusively for Medical Officers posted at Hamirpur, that Dr. Bhardwaj's wife — a school principal — could not legally be allotted it, and that the petitioner had compounded the irregularity by obtaining a second Government residence at Shimla while still in unauthorised possession of the Hamirpur quarters. The court directed the Principal Secretary (Health) to initiate an inquiry into which officials colluded with the petitioner to allow the situation to persist for more than a decade, and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 payable to the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025.
The Dispute Before the Court
Dr. Bhardwaj was appointed as a Medical Officer in 1994. On 3 December 2015, he was posted as Medical Officer (Health) in Regional Hospital, Hamirpur. On 29 July 2016, on the recommendation of the Departmental House Allotment Committee, he was allotted a Type-IV Departmental Government Accommodation — Set No. 9 at Hamirpur.
In July 2017, he was transferred to the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Shimla. At that point, his wife was serving as a Lecturer (Biology) at Government Senior Secondary School Taal, District Hamirpur, and their child was studying in Class X at S.D. Public School, Hamirpur. On 17 September 2017, Dr. Bhardwaj wrote to Respondent No. 3 seeking permission to retain the accommodation on the ground that his wife was posted in a nearby station.
He invoked Rule 8(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994 — a provision that permits a Government employee to retain accommodation when the spouse is also in Government service and posted at the same or a nearby station. He followed up with representations dated 25 September 2017, 12 April 2018, and an affidavit dated 18 July 2019.
The Additional Chief Secretary (Health) wrote on 30 November 2018 advising that the petitioner's case be examined under Rule 8(3) of the 1994 Rules. Despite this, a subsequent communication dated 25 February 2020 concluded that Rule 8(3) did not apply and asked that the concerned officer vacate the accommodation.
Dr. Bhardwaj continued to occupy the quarters. By letters dated 9 August 2023 and 5 October 2023, the respondents demanded deposit of damage charges amounting to Rs. 12,90,959 calculated from November 2017. He challenged both those letters in CWP No. 9187 of 2023, seeking their quashing and a direction to treat his case as a couple case under Rule 8(3).
The Legal Issue
Two questions arose. First, whether the accommodation at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur was a General Pool accommodation to which Rule 8(3) of the 1994 Rules applied at all, or whether it was an earmarked accommodation for Medical Officers only. Second, whether the petitioner's wife, a school principal and not a doctor, could be allotted what was essentially a Dedicated Doctors Residence so that the couple-case retention provision could be activated.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the wife was serving in a nearby station within District Hamirpur and that the respondents were misinterpreting the phrase “same station” in Rule 8(3). He also submitted that the Department had itself assured the petitioner the accommodation would be transferred to his wife's name, making the demand of penal rent unsustainable.
The Additional Advocate General countered that the accommodation was a Dedicated Doctors Residence earmarked for Medical Officers and above in the Health Department at Hamirpur, not a General Pool accommodation, and therefore the 1994 Rules did not govern it. He further pointed out that the petitioner had filed affidavits in 2018 and 2019 stating that his wife was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Lambloo — a location which, per Google Maps, was 9.4 km from Hamirpur and outside the Municipal limits, placing it outside the definition of the “same station.” He added that at the time of filing the petition, Dr. Bhardwaj was serving as Deputy Medical Superintendent at Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Nerchowk, District Mandi, and had even occupied a Government residence at Shimla from 1 March 2022 until his transfer to Mandi in March 2023.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Goel accepted the respondents' position on the character of the accommodation. He found it established — and not rebutted by way of any rejoinder — that the quarters were an earmarked accommodation meant for Medical Officers posted in District Hamirpur, not a Common Pool accommodation. Once that was settled, Rule 8(3) of the 1994 Rules was simply inapplicable.
The wife, a school principal, was not a Medical Officer. She could not, therefore, be allotted an accommodation earmarked for Medical Officers or above. The court also noted that she had, in any event, been posted at institutions outside the Municipal limits of Hamirpur throughout the relevant period, meaning even the geographical condition for a couple case was not satisfied on the facts.
On the petitioner's submission that the son's board examination justified initial retention, Justice Goel acknowledged it but rejected it as a defence for a decade of continued occupation spanning 2016 to 2026. The court found the conduct telling: after his transfer from Hamirpur, Dr. Bhardwaj served at Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, then at the Directorate of Health Services, Shimla — where he applied for and obtained a Government accommodation which he occupied from 1 March 2022 until March 2023. He was, therefore, simultaneously in possession of a Government residence at Shimla while remaining in unauthorised possession of the earmarked quarters at Hamirpur.
Justice Goel observed that the petitioner's possession of a public asset earmarked for Medical Officers serving at Hamirpur had, for over a decade, denied that accommodation to those legally entitled to it. The court went further, recording that such prolonged unauthorised retention could not have continued without the active cooperation of officials in the Department. The inference drawn was that the persons concerned were “hand in glove” with the petitioner.
Inquiry Directed Against Erring Officials
Justice Goel directed the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh, to initiate an inquiry to identify which officers or officials connived with the petitioner to allow him to retain the earmarked accommodation for almost a decade after his transfer from Hamirpur. The matter is to be listed on 14 September 2026 for the Principal Secretary to report to the court on the action initiated against the erring officials.
On the question of damage charges, the court upheld the impugned orders dated 9 August 2023 and 5 October 2023 demanding Rs. 12,90,959. It also held that beyond those amounts already quantified, the respondents were entitled to recover penal rent or damage charges from the date of unauthorised occupation until the petitioner actually vacates the premises.
Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000, which Dr. Bhardwaj is directed to deposit with the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025 within four weeks of the date of the judgment. The demand for damage charges of Rs. 12,90,959 stands, and the respondents retain the right to recover further penal rent up to the date of actual vacation. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. The matter is listed on 14 September 2026 for a compliance report from the Principal Secretary (Health) on the inquiry into official connivance.