Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 22.04.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 30 April, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2025:HHC:11784 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2138 of 2025 Reserved on: 22.04.2025 Date of decision: 30.04.2025 Amitabh Gautam. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vasu Sood, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. : None for respondent No.4.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner and respondent No.4 are seniormost members of the Indian Forest Service. Petitioner is currently posted as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Himachal Pradesh, whereas respondent No.4 is the seniormost Indian Forest Service Officer posted in the State of Himachal Pradesh as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest ('PCCF') Head of Forest Force ('HoFF'). Their tug of war in the instant petition is for Set No.1, Type-VI, Talland, Shimla. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-2- 2025:HHC:11784
2. Background 2(i). Petitioner, after serving the Central Government, joined the respondent-State in the year 2022. He was allotted Set No.4, Type-VI, Mist Chamber, Forest Colony, Khalini, Shimla, on 16.07.2022 and accordingly occupied the said premises.
2(ii). On 22.07.2022, petitioner applied for change of accommodation as under:-
"8. Choices for change of accommodation.
(a) Talland - To be vacated by Sh. Ajay Srivastava post-retirement.
(b) Mandir Colony - Vacated by Sh. Surender Sharma & Smt. Archana. Allotted to Dr. Pawnesh Sharma on vacation.
(c) Mandir Colony - Allotted to Sh. Sanjay Sood on vacation.
(d). Mist Chamber - Allotted to Sh. R.K. Gupta on vacation."
On the recommendations of the House Allotment Committee ('HAC') on 14.03.2023, petitioner was allotted Set No.2, Type-VI, Talland. However, the said allotment was cancelled on 28.03.2023.
2(iii). On 12.04.2023, petitioner requested the PCCF (HoFF) for allotting him Type-VI residence at Talland, Shimla that was allotted to and in occupation of Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the then PCCF (HoFF) on its vacation by him.
-3- 2025:HHC:11784 Petitioner's request was placed before Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the then PCCF (HoFF). The request was approved. The matter was directed to be placed before HAC on 19.05.2023. The meeting of HAC was convened on 19.05.2023 itself. The Committee considered the application of the petitioner for allotment of Set No.1, Type-VI, Talland, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as 'the house') and decided to allot the said accommodation to him on its vacation by the present incumbent, i.e. Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the then PCCF (HoFF). The allotment letter was accordingly issued to the petitioner on 20.05.2023 with the rider that the said accommodation will be allotted to him as and when vacated by the present incumbent (Sh. Rajiv Kumar).
2(iv). Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the then PCCF (HoFF) was to superannuate on 31.07.2024. The accommodation in his possession was allotted to the petitioner on 20.05.2023. It is a matter of record that Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the then PCCF (HoFF), was permitted to retain the Government accommodation in his possession even beyond his superannuation. He retained the accommodation till 31.01.2025.
-4- 2025:HHC:11784 2(v). In the meanwhile, the respondent-Forest
Department decided that HAC was to carry out its functions in accordance with State General Administration Department's notification dated 01.04.1998 viz.:-
"1. Allotment of Houses on out of turn basis.
2. Categorization/re-categorization of houses.
3. Recommendation regarding revision of House Allotment Rules to be made to Govt. and issue of infrastructure thereunder.
4. Earmarking of houses for various officers.
5. Cases of second change/exchange of allotment under the rules."
2(vi). For carrying out above functions, meeting of HAC took place on 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-11). The committee decided to earmark following accommodation for specific designation of officers:-
"Sr. Accommodation Designation of No. Officer to whom earmarked 1 Set No.-1, Block-I, Type-VI at Talland. PCCF (HoFF), HP This accommodation has been set aside & utilized by successive Heads of Department in the past except a few exceptions. This is the most appropriate accommodation of HoD as the office of HoD is just nearby which facilitates in office working for the Head of Department.
2 Set No.-4, Block-I, Type-VI at Mist PCCF (Wildlife),
Chamber, Forest Officers Colony H.P.
3 Set No.4, Block-I, Type-VI at Temple MD, HPSFDC
Forest Officers Colony. Ltd."
-5- 2025:HHC:11784
Following the Committee's decision, respondents on 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-12) earmarked Set No.1, Block-I, Type-VI at Talland, Shimla for PCCF (HoFF) and Set No.4, Type-VI, Mist Chamber, Forest Colony, Khalini, Shimla, was earmarked for PCCF (Wildlife). Petitioner as PCCF (Wildlife) is already in occupation of Set No.4, Type-VI, Mist Chamber, Forest Colony, Khalini, Shimla.
2(vii). Feeling aggrieved against earmarking of the Set No.1, Block-I, Type-VI at Talland, Shimla, for the PCCF (HoFF), petitioner preferred a representation on 04.10.2024 to respondent No.1. Getting no response, he instituted CWP No.1208 of 2025. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.01.2025 with direction to respondent No.1 to decide petitioner's representation by 30.01.2025. Respondent No.1 rejected petitioner's representation vide order dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure P-17).
It is in the aforesaid background that petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:-
"1. That the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 Annexure P-17, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
2. Quash and set-aside the impugned orders dated 02.09.2024, Annexure P-11 and order dated
-6- 2025:HHC:11784 26.09.2024 Annexure P-12, issued by the Member HAC-I, earmarking Set No. 1, Type-VI, Talland, for the post of PCCF (HoFF).
3. Restraining the respondents, not to act on the basis of impugned orders dated 02.09.2024, Annexure P-11 and order dated 26.09.2024 Annexure P-12, which are not in consonance with the House Allotment Rules 1994.
4. Direct the respondents to allot Set No. 1, Type-VI, Talland, to the petitioner as per Annexure P-8 Colly, vide which the said accommodation stood allotted to the petitioner."
Pursuant to interim order passed in this matter on 03.02.2025, the accommodation is presently lying vacant. Petitioner and respondent No.4 are to superannuate on 30.11.2025 & 31.07.2025, respectively.
3. Submissions 3(i). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that:-
3(i)(a). The HAC functions under the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool), Rules, 1994 (for brevity 'House Allotment Rules'). These Rules do not confer any power upon HAC to earmark the houses. The HAC's decision in earmarking the house in question to PCCF (HoFF) was illegal and in absence of any authority vested in it under the House Allotment Rules. In case the respondents desired to earmark the houses, the appropriate course was to seek an
-7- 2025:HHC:11784 amendment to the House Allotment Rules. Referring to following Rules 21 of House Allotment Rules, it was also canvassed since question of interpretation of the Rules was involved, the respondent-Forest Department ought to have referred the matter, regarding earmarking of the houses, to the State for its decision, but this legal recourse was not adopted:-
"21. Interpretation of rules.--If any question arised as to interpretation of these rules, the decision of the Government shall be final."
Respondents' direction to the HAC to earmark the houses and HAC's decision earmarking the houses were without any authority, in derogation of the House Allotment Rules and had not even been confirmed by the State Government. The circular/instructions of the State Government dated 01.04.1998 based upon which the house was earmarked for PCCF (HoFF) by the HAC, was contrary to the House Allotment Rules. Reliance in support of these submission was placed upon following paragraphs of Union of India and Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal 1:-
58. A Constitution Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue in respect of executive instructions in Sant 1 (2013) 16 SCC 147
-8- 2025:HHC:11784 Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.2, held: (AIR p.
1914, para 7) "7. .... It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by administrative instruction, but if the Rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill-up the gap and supplement the rule and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules already framed."
59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/ executive instructions in contravention of the statutory Rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. (Vide: Union of India & Ors. v. Majji Jangammayya & Ors.3, P.D. Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of U.P.4, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of India5, C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta6 and Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation7.)
60. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of this Court, in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India8, held that the executive instructions have binding force provided the same have been issued to fill up the gap between the statutory provisions and are not inconsistent with the said provisions."
Placing reliance upon above as also following paragraphs of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors.9, it was urged that HAC's action in earmarking the house actually supplanted the House Allotment Rules and, on this count also, is also bad in the eyes of law:- 2
AIR 1967 SC 1910 3 (1977) 1 SCC 606 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 191 4 (1987) 3 SCC 622 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 310 : (1987) 4 ATC 272 5 (1989) 2 SCC 541 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1989) 10 ATC 378 : AIR 1990 SC 166 6 (1998) 6 SCC 66 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1448 7 (2011) 5 SCC 435: AIR 2011 SC 2220 8 (1998) 2 SCC 109 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 514 : AIR 1998 SC 431 9 W.P. (C) No.13770 of 2024, CM APPLs No.57702/2024 & 57703/2024 decided on 01.10.2024 (High Court of Delhi)
-9- 2025:HHC:11784 "7. Apropos the OM dated 5 October 2021, the learned Tribunal, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v Ashok Kumar Aggarwal 10 held that an OM could not supersede Recruitment Rules promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was held that an OM, being an executive instruction, could only supplement the statutory Recruitment Rules, and could not supplant it."
Further it was submitted that HAC was directed on 03.09.2024 to act in furtherance of functions described in the circular dated 01.04.1998 but, the HAC had already convened its meeting for the aforesaid purpose on 02.09.2024 and earmarked the house in question on 02.09.2024 for PCCF (HoFF). The respondents had placed the cart before the horse in a most illegal manner.
3(i)(b). The house in question had already been allotted to the petitioner. While the petitioner was awaiting possession of the same, the HAC in its subsequent meeting, earmarked that very house in favour of the PCCF (HoFF). This action was taken without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Principles of natural justice were violated. 3(i)(c). Respondent No.4 had already been allotted a Type- VI Government accommodation. He did not occupy it and requested for change to Type-V category. Therefore, in 10 (2013) 16 SCC 147
-10- 2025:HHC:11784 accordance with Rule 13(3) of the House Allotment Rules, he could not be allotted any other house: -
"13(3). If an officer/official fails to accept a change of residence offered to him within eight days of the receipt of such order/offer or allotment, she shall not be considered again for a change of allotment of that type."
In view of above, prayer was made for setting aside and quashing the earmarking of Set No.1, Type-VI, Talland, Shimla for the post of PCCF (HoFF) and for allotting this accommodation to the petitioner.
3(ii). Submissions of learned Advocate General:-
3(ii)(a). Learned Advocate General contended that the petitioner has no vested right to claim allotment of a specific house, as the power to allot lies within the domain and at the discretion of the respondents-State, albeit to be exercised in accordance with the applicable Rules, instructions and law;
Respondents have exercised the discretion as per law and earmarked & allotted the house in question to PCCF (HoFF).
Attention was also invited to Rules 7(1) & (3) and 10 of the House Allotment Rules.
3(ii)(b). It was submitted that the allotment of the house made in favour of the petitioner on 20.05.2023, was not in
-11- 2025:HHC:11784 conformity with law. The house in question at that time was occupied by Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the then PCCF (HoFF). Pursuant to his approval, the house was allotted to the petitioner on its vacation by Sh. Rajiv Kumar, who was to superannuate on 31.07.2024. The house could not have been allotted to the petitioner, 14 months before its becoming available for allotment. Reference was made to office communication dated 16.04.2016 (page 278 of the paperbook), issued by the General Administration Department of the State to the effect that 'the requests of various applicants for change of Government residence with regard to a particular set would be considered three months before the retirement of the officer/official, who is in possession of the said accommodation.' 3(ii)(c). The House Allotment Rules were referred by learned Advocate General to submit that under these Rules, instructions have been issued from time to time by the State conferring powers upon and delineating functions of the HAC.
One such power and function of the HAC, as set out in the office letter dated 01.04.1998, is to earmark the houses. Based upon this, it was submitted that decision of earmarking the house in question for PCCF (HoFF) was within the four corners of authority conferred on HAC by the State under the Rules.
-12- 2025:HHC:11784 3(ii)(d). Learned Advocate General also submitted that house in question has always been occupied by PCCF (HoFF) continuously w.e.f. the year 2017 onwards. Even prior to the year 2017, barring a few exceptions, the house has been allotted to PCCF (HoFF). Referring to certain documents placed on record, it was submitted that few exceptions prior to the year 2017 were for the reasons that officers holding the post of PCCF (HoFF), at the relevant time, were not interested to occupy the house, the house remaining vacant was allotted to someone else. Further referring to the documents, submission was made that respondent-Forest Department had traditionally treated this house as earmarked for the post of PCCF (HoFF). The earmarking of the house by the HAC on 02.09.2024 for the PCCF (HoFF) was an official endorsement of the prevailing convention and longstanding practice followed by the respondent-Forest Department for years together.
3(ii)(e). On alleged violation of principles of natural justice, learned Advocate General submitted that in the given facts and circumstances, compliance of principles of natural justice was not required. It was one of the functions of the HAC to earmark the house. The house in question had consistently
-13- 2025:HHC:11784 been allotted to the PCCF (HoFF). The house was accordingly earmarked by the HAC on 02.09.2024 to PCCF (HoFF). There was no necessity for giving hearing to the petitioner. He had no vested right in the allotment of this specific house. Allotment of the houses under the House Allotment Rules is discretion of the respondents, which is to be exercised in accordance with law and applicable rules. In any case, pursuant to the directions given by the Court in CWP No.1208 of 2025, the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his case, whereafter, his representation was rejected on 30.01.2025.
On the basis of above submissions, learned Advocate General prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Consideration Gist of petitioner's case is that the HAC had allotted Set No.1, Type-VI, Talland, Shimla, to him on 20.05.2023. He was to be given possession of this accommodation on its vacation by the then PCCF (HoFF)- Sh. Rajiv Kumar. After allotment of the house to the petitioner, it could not have been earmarked by the HAC subsequently on 02.09.2024 for the PCCF (HoFF). Such earmarking of the
-14- 2025:HHC:11784 house by HAC is also not backed by any authority of law. Applicable Rules do not provide for earmarking of the house. The manner in which HAC proceeded to earmark the house for PCCF (HoFF), is also unlawful. Infraction of principles of natural justice while earmarking the house, which was allotted to the petitioner for the post of PCCF (HoFF), have also been alleged.
4(i). Authority of HAC for earmarking the house 4(i)(a). The General Administration Department of State of Himachal Pradesh has framed the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool), Rules, 1994. It is admitted case of the parties that aforesaid Rules are applicable to the respondent-Forest Department for the allotment of the house in question.
Rule 2(a) of House Allotment Rules defines 'allotment' as the grant of license to occupy a residence in accordance with provisions of these rules.
Rule 2(i) defines 'house allotment committee' as a committee constituted by the Himachal Pradesh Government from time to time to carry out the functions assigned to it in these rules.
-15- 2025:HHC:11784 Rule 7 pertains to allotment of residence, relevant portion whereof provides as under:-
"7. Allotment of residence.--
(1) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a residence, falling vacant, may be allotted by the Secretary (GAD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh to an applicant desiring a change of accommodation in that type in genuine cases under the provisions of rule 13 or to an applicant without accommodation in that type of residence having the earliest date of priority for that type of residence, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) the Secretary shall not allot a residence of a type higher than to what the applicant is eligible under rule-5;
(ii) the Secretary shall not compel any applicant to accept a residence of a lower type than to what he is eligible under rule 5; and
(iii) the Secretary, on request from an applicant for allotment of a lower category residence may allot to him a residence of one type below for which the applicant is eligible under rule 5 on the basis of his priority date for the same". -
---(30-8-2011) (2) The Director may cancel the existing allotment of an officer/official and allot to him an alternative residence of the same type or in emergent circumstances an alternative residence of type next below the type of residence in occupation of the officer/official if the residence in occupation of the officer is required to be vacated in public interest. (3) A vacant residence may, in addition to allotment to an officer/official under sub-rule (1), be offered simultaneously to other eligible officers/officials in the order of their priority dates.
(4) The contract employees recruited through the prescribed recruiting agency may be considered for allotment of Government accommodation alongwith regular Government employees
-16- 2025:HHC:11784 subject to the following terms and conditions:- -
---(26-4-2012)
(i) A contract employee, by virtue of the corresponding post being held by him/her, shall be eligible for allotment of that type of Government accommodation for which a regular employee is entitled while posted initially on the same post which is being held by the contract employee, on payment of normal license fee; and
(ii) The Priority for allotment of Government accommodation to the contract employees, irrespective of the type of accommodation, shall be the date of joining in the service under the State Government but, shall be placed below the regular employees in that category/ type. ----(26-4-2012)"
4(i)(b). The General Administration Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification on 01.04.1998 reconstituting the HAC at the State Headquarter in terms of Rule 2(i) of the House Allotment Rules and also delineated the functions of the Committee. The relevant portion of the notification is as under:-
"In supersession of this Department Office Order of even number dated 27.1.97, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is placed to reconstitute the House Allotment Committee at the State Headquarter in term of Rule-2(i) of H.P., Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994, consisting of the following with immediate effect:-
1. The Addl. Chief Secretary. Chairman
2. Financial Commissioner-cum- Member Secretary to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh
-17- 2025:HHC:11784
3. F.C.-cum- Secretary to the Member Govt. of Himachal Pradesh
4. Commr.-cum-Secretary to the Member Govt. of Himachal Pradesh
5. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla Member
6. Addl. Secy./Jt. Secy./ Dy. Member Secy./ Under Secretary (GAD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh.
Functions of the Committee:-
1. Allotment of Houses on out-of-turn basis.
2. Categorisation/re-categorisation of houses.
3. Recommendation regarding revision of House Allotment Rules to be made to Govt. and issue of instructions thereunder.
4. Earmarking of houses for various officers.
5. Cases of second change/exchange of allotment under the rules. ......."
[Emphasis supplied] The aforesaid notification was issued in supersession of office order dated 27.01.1997. Earmarking the houses for various posts is one of the enumerated functions of the Committee. It appears that notifications have been issued by the State from time to time delineating the functions of the HAC. The notification has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Rule 2(i) of the House Allotment Rules that vests the authority in the State to constitute HAC from time to time for carrying out functions assigned to it under the Rules. On the pattern of HAC at the State Headquarter, respondents-
-18- 2025:HHC:11784 Forest Department has also constituted its own HAC for carrying out the same functions as performed by the HAC at the State level in terms of notification dated 01.04.1998. Therefore, it cannot be said that earmarking of houses for the posts/officers is not within the purview of the HAC. 4(i)(c). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the notification dated 01.04.1998 giving authority to the HAC to earmark the houses for officers supplants the House Allotment Rules, which is impermissible. On the strength of this notification, HAC could not have earmarked the house for the post of PCCF (HoFF). Further, in case the respondents desired to vest this function in the HAC or they desired earmarking the house in question to PCCF (HoFF), an amendment was required to be carried out to the House Allotment Rules. It was also contended that in terms of Rule 21 of the House Allotment Rules, any question concerning interpretation of the Rules was required to be referred to the decision of the Government. Respondents have neither amended the Rules nor the question of earmarking the house for the post of PCCF (HoFF) has been referred to the State Government.
-19- 2025:HHC:11784 The above contentions also lack substance. There is no provision under the House Allotment Rules, which prohibits earmarking of the houses by the HAC. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any provision of the House Allotment Rules that bars earmarking the Government accommodation in favour of the officers. As noticed earlier, Rule 2(i) of the House Allotment Rules provides for constitution of a HAC from time to time to carry out the functions assigned to it under the Rules. It is in exercise of this power that the respondents-State issued a notification on 01.04.1998 constituting the HAC and enumerated its functions. The functions of the Committee include earmarking of the houses for the officers/posts. It is otherwise well-settled that where rules are silent, the gap can be filled-in under the Executive instructions provided that the same are not contrary to the provisions of the Rules. The notification dated 01.04.1998, cannot be said to be contrary to the House Allotment Rules. It in no manner supplants the Rules. The notification rather supplements the Rules. The notification has not even been assailed in the petition. The earmarking of the house to PCCF (HoFF) by the HAC of the
-20- 2025:HHC:11784 respondents-Forest Department as per notification dated 01.04.1998 is within its domain and in consonance with law. 4(ii). Previously followed conventions/practice 4(ii)(a). The respondents in their reply have pleaded that ever since 12.07.2017 onwards, the house in question has been continuously allotted to and occupied only by the PCCF (HoFF). The tabulated detail given in this regard by the respondents is as under:-
Sr. Name & Designation Period No.
1. Dr. G.S. Goraya, IFS 12.07.2017 to PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.) 10/2018
2. Sh. Ajay Kumar, IFS 15.10.2018 to PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.) 07/2020
3. Dr. Savita, IFS 08.07.2020 to PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.) 01/2022
4. Sh. Ajay Srivastava, IFS 22.02.2022 to PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.) 03/2023
5. Sh. Rajiv Kumar, IFS 28.02.2023 to PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.) 31.01.2025 From the above, it is apparent that the house has traditionally been occupied by the PCCF (HoFF), even though it was not officially earmarked for the post as such. Petitioner in his rejoinder has not denied the above tabulation but
-21- 2025:HHC:11784 through following table given some exceptions when the house was not occupied by following officers holding the post of PCCF (HoFF):-
Sr. Name & Designation Period No.
1. Sh. R.K. Gupta 08/2011 - 09/2017 PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.)
2. Sh. Sunil Srivastava 10/2014 - 07/2015 PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.)
3. Sh. S.P. Vasudeva 09/2015 - 09/2016 PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.)
4. Sh. S.S. Negi 10/2016 - 06/2017 PCCF (HoFF), HP (Retd.) Learned Advocate General during hearing of the case placed on record a compendium of documents and submitted that the house in question has actually been treated as 'earmarked accommodation' for the PCCF (HoFF) for years together even prior to the year 2017 but, there have been occasions when this accommodation has been allotted to someone else, as the incumbents holding the post of PCCF (HoFF), at the relevant time, were not interested in occupying the accommodation. This factual assertion appears to carry some force that can be gathered from following documents placed on record (relevant portion only):-
-22- 2025:HHC:11784
Office letter dated 24.01.2013.
Sr. Name & From To Remarks
No. designation
1. Sh. A.K. Gulaati, Set No.-I, Talland House Allotted for the time
IFS, Managing Block-II, (earmarked being because the
Director, HP Type-V, accommodation of accommodation is
Minorities Fin. & Mist Pr.CCF, HOFF, HP). lying vacant as the
Dev. Corporation Chamber, present incumbent is
Ltd. Khalini not interest to occupy
the same.
Office letter dated 08.02.2013.
Sr. Name & From To Remarks
No. designation
1. Dr. S.S. Negi, IFS, - Talland House Allotted for the time being
Director, (earmarked because the
Department of accommodation of accommodation is lying
Environment Pr.CCF, HOFF, HP). vacant as the present
Science and incumbent is not interest to
Technology, Govt. occupy the same. The
of H.P., Shimla. officer will have to vacate
the accommodation it
needed by the Pr.CCF (HoFF)
HP in future.
Office letter dated 16.12.2014.
Sr. Name & From To Remarks
No. designation
1. Sh. C.S. New Earmarked To be vacated.
Singh, IFS, allotment accommodation for Allotted subject to the
APCCF Pr.CCF, HP at condition that he will
Talland to be have to vacate the said
vacated by Dr. S.S. accommodation within
Negi, PCCF 15 days if the same is
required by the Pr.CCF
(HoFF) HP in future.
Besides above, there is another officer
communication dated 12.05.2009 that suggests that house in question had been treated as earmarked for PCCF (HoFF), the contents of the letter addressed by the then PCCF (Wildlife)-
cum-Chief Wildlife Warden (the post currently held by the petitioner) read as under:-
-23- 2025:HHC:11784
"From:
Principal CCF (Wildlife)-cum
Chief Wildlife Warden, H.P.
To
The Addl. Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla- 171002.
Dated Shimla-1, the Sub: Earmarking of residence for PCCF (Wildlife).
Sir, In the department now there are 2 posts of Principal CCFs. One residence at Talland complex is already earmarked for Principal CCF. Since there is no earmarked residence for another Principal CCF as such he has to depend on allotment from the general pool which may result in the allotment of much lower category residence i.e. Type-IV or Type-V residence due to allotment rules. It is, therefore, requested that Set No.-3, Block-I in Forest Officers' Colony, Khalini near Hanuman Temple which is a Type- VI residence and presently under occupation of Dr. Pankaj Khullar, PCCF (Retd.) may kindly be earmarked as residence of Principal CCF (Wildlife) and the allotment in respect of said residence if any made by the PCC be ordered to be cancelled. An early action in the matter is requested.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Principal CCF (Wildlife)-cum
-Chief Wildlife Warden, H.P."
In view of above, it is quite apparent that the house has been conventionally treated as earmarked for the post of PCCF (HoFF).
4(iii). Allotment of the house to the petitioner 4(iii)(a). On 20.05.2023, Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the then PCCF (HoFF) approved allotment of the house in question to the
-24- 2025:HHC:11784 petitioner with the condition that petitioner was to occupy the house as and when vacated by the existing incumbent. The existing incumbent of the house at the time was none else but Sh. Rajiv Kumar himself, who was to superannuate on 31.07.2024. There were 14 months in the retirement of Sh. Rajiv Kumar, when he approved the allotment of the house in his possession in petitioner's favour. Allotment of a house in proximity of it being vacated by the existing incumbent is fathomable, but allotment of the house, when the existing occupant had 14 months to superannuate, is beyond comprehension. This is a too long-time gap between the allotment of a house and its actual availability for occupation by the allottee. Further, the person who was to superannuate could have retained the accommodation in his possession even after superannuation in accordance with the applicable Rules. And, that is exactly what has happened in the instant case. Sh. Rajiv Kumar applied for and was permitted to retain the premises in question upto 31.01.2025. Vide order passed in this petition on 03.03.2025, the respondents were directed to file affidavit through the Secretary, GAD as to whether houses have been allotted in District Shimla to officials prior
-25- 2025:HHC:11784 to their vacation by the earlier incumbents and if so, under what rules.
Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, GAD, filed his affidavits dated 11.03.2025 and 29.03.2025. The affidavits state that as per Rule 7(1) of the House Allotment Rules, 'residence falling vacant may be allotted by the Secretary (GAD) to an applicant desiring a change in accommodation in genuine cases; The expression 'falling vacant' is also taken to imply 'likely to fall vacant in near future' and in such cases, allotment may be done subject to vacation by existing incumbents.' It has further been submitted in the affidavits that as per instructions issued on 16.04.2016 by the General Administration Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh, request of the applicants for change of Government residence with regard to a particular set can be considered three months before retirement of the officer/official, who is in possession of the said accommodation. Being relevant, the contents of the letter/instructions dated 16.04.2016 appended with affidavit dated 29.03.2025 are extracted hereinafter:-
"From The Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
-26- 2025:HHC:11784
To
1. The Director of Estates, Himachal
Pradesh, Shimla.
2. All the District Estates Officers, O/o. Deputy Commissioners, H.P. Dated Shimla,2, the 16th April, 2016 Subject: HP Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994-Instructions thereof.
Sir, I am directed to say that Rule 13 of H.P. Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994 provides provision of change of Government Residences. It is noticed that many fresh allottees of Government Residences on out of turn basis apply immediately for change and avail the same. It has been decided that requests of the applicants, who are allotted Government accommodation on out of turn basis, for change of Government accommodation will be considered after a period of one year from the date of their possession of the present accommodation. It has also been decided that the requests of various applications for change of Government residence with regard to a particular set will be considered three months before the retirement of the officer/official who is in possession of the said accommodation.
These instructions will come into force with immediate effect."
In the instant case, it was not just three months but fourteen months, prior to the retirement of the existing incumbent in occupation of the house in question, that the petitioner was allotted that house, as change in the accommodation. Such allotment was not justifiable, where it was certain that house will not be vacated for the next fourteen months.
-27- 2025:HHC:11784 Be that as it may, the fact remains that the house in question had been conventionally treated as earmarked for the PCCF (HoFF), its allotment to the petitioner on 20.05.2023 on its vacation on 31.07.2024 by the existing incumbent, cannot be sustained. There is even otherwise, no vested right in the petitioner to claim allotment of the house in question merely on the ground that HAC had allotted it to him on 20.05.2023. The HAC was subsequently directed to perform the functions assigned to it under office circular/notification dated 01.04.1998. One of the duties to be discharged by it was to earmark Government accommodation to officers, which it did. The house in question was officially earmarked for the PCCF (HoFF) on 02.09.2024. The house in question at that time was still in possession of Sh. Rajiv Kumar, who had been permitted to retain it.
4(iv). The procedure adopted Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also urged that it was on 03.09.2024 that HAC was directed to perform the duties in terms of notification dated 01.04.1998 issued by the General Administration Department of the State, including earmarking the houses for various officers, but the
-28- 2025:HHC:11784 said Committee had already convened its meeting on 02.09.2024 and earmarked the house in question for the post of the PCCF (HoFF).
From the record produced by the respondents, it appears that the notification dated 01.04.1998 was already in force and was applicable to the respondents-Forest Department. The Member Secretary, HAC, had requested for convening the meeting of HAC so that the functions assigned to it were discharged in consonance with the notification dated 01.04.1998, wherein functions of HAC had been detailed, including earmarking of houses of various officers. The note- sheet dated 27.08.2024 stated that the Forest Department follows the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool), Rules, 1994, for allotment of Government accommodation but the functions of the House Allotment Committee were not specified in the office order No.28/24 dated 13.06.2024, therefore, the functions as enumerated in the notification dated 01.04.1998 were required to be included and the meeting of the HAC was to be convened accordingly. The record also shows that on 02.09.2024, the Member Secretary, HAC, referred to some assembly questions raised on 29.08.2024 regarding
-29- 2025:HHC:11784 earmarking of Government residences to Senior Officers of various departments viz:- Senior Officers in Forest Department, i.e. PCCF (HoFF), PCCF (Wildlife)-cum-Chief Wildlife Warden (the post presently held by the petitioner) and PCCF-cum-MD, HPSFDC, which did not have earmarked accommodation; For want of earmarked residences, the Senior Officers, at times have to stay in the houses below their entitlement and in few cases junior officers are allotted accommodation higher than their entitlement causing resentment to the senior officers, therefore, the HAC was required to perform the functions on the similar lines as delineated in the notification dated 01.04.1998. The HAC accordingly convened its meeting on 02.09.2024 and earmarked the houses wherein the house in question was earmarked for PCCF (HoFF). Therefore, it cannot be said that HAC's meeting on 02.09.2024 preceded the decision of the respondents for including earmarking of houses for various officers, as function of the Committee.
4(v). Principles of natural justice In the given facts and circumstances of the cases, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice were
-30- 2025:HHC:11784 infracted. Though the petitioner was allotted the house on 20.05.2023, but he could not occupy it as it was still in the possession of the existing incumbent, who was set to retire after fourteen months, i.e. on 31.07.2024. It is yet another matter that the existing incumbent continued to be in possession of the house for six more months after his retirement and vacated the same on 31.01.2025. The record of the case has established that barring a few exceptions, which have been explained by the respondents, the house in question by and large has been allotted to the seniormost officer of the respondent-Department, i.e. the PCCF (HoFF). The house has been traditionally treated as earmarked for PCCF (HoFF). The State though while issuing notification dated 01.04.1998 had given the function of earmarking of the houses to the HAC but this function was not discharged by the HAC of the respondent-Forest Department. The HAC of the respondent-Forest Department was directed on 27.08.2024 to discharge this function as well. Accordingly, this HAC of the respondent-Forest Department convened a meeting on 02.09.2024 and officially earmarked the house for PCCF (HoFF). The Committee discharged the function assigned to it in terms of notification dated 01.04.1998 issued by the State
-31- 2025:HHC:11784 Government, which is also applicable to the respondent- Department. Therefore, no purpose would have been served by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before earmarking the house for the post of PCCF (HoFF). The opportunity of hearing would have been an empty formality. The allotment of the house made in favour of the petitioner on 20.05.2023 was not even absolute, but a conditional one viz. the house was allotted to him as and when vacated by the present incumbent. The petitioner does not have any vested right for the allotment of the house in question in the given facts and circumstances of the case read with the applicable House Allotment Rules and the circulars/notifications issued thereunder.
Furthermore, pursuant to CWP No.1208 of 2025 instituted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 gave an opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before it and vide a detailed order dated 30.01.2025 rejected his representation. Thus, respondent No.1-the State confirmed the decision of respondent No.2-the Forest Department in earmarking the house for the post of PCCF (HoFF).
-32- 2025:HHC:11784 4(vi). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also
urged that Respondent No.4 had only been given additional charge for the post of PCCF (HoFF) under notification dated 01.01.2025 and that he has not been regularly promoted as such. This contention, which has not been pleaded in the writ petition, was rebutted by learned Advocate General by submitting that there have been instances in the respondent- Forest Department, when incumbents given additional charge of PCCF (HoFF) were allotted the premises in question. After closure of the arguments, learned Counsel for the parties apprised that under Notification dated 28.04.2025, on the recommendations of Special Selection Committee, respondent No. 4 has been appointed as PCCF (HoFF) in the Apex Scale (Level 17 in the Pay Matrix). Respondent No.4 has otherwise been drawing pay in Level-16, w.e.f. 30.04.2021 whereas petitioner is drawing the pay in Level-16, w.e.f. 13.01.2023. 4(vii). The ground urged that respondent No.4 is not entitled for change in accommodation in view of Rule 13(3) of the House Allotment Rules is also not tenable. Respondent no.4 was originally allotted a Type-VI accommodation. He requested for change to Type-V category. His request was accepted by the HAC and a Type-V Government
-33- 2025:HHC:11784 accommodation was allotted to him. Respondent No.4 was given additional charge of PCCF (HoFF) on 01.01.2025. Rule 13(3) does not come in the way of respondent no.4-the PCCF (HoFF) to have the house, i.e. the one earmarked for PCCF (HoFF), as he was given additional charge of PCCF (HoFF) on 01.01.2025 and made regular PCCF (HoFF) on 28.04.2025.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Before parting, considering that house in question was allotted to the petitioner when it was certain that it would not be available for possession by the allottee at least for next fourteen months, the General Administrative Department of State of Himachal Pradesh through the office of learned Advocate General is directed to circulate the House Allotment Rules along with all applicable notifications/circulars/instructions/office letters on the subject to all concerned Departments/Offices within two weeks for their strict adherence by the concerned quarters.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
30th April, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)