Dr. Nivedita Sharma vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University Of Horticulture And Forestry And Another

CWP No. 15766 of 2024 Decided on 17.08.2026 Dr. Nivedita Sharma …Petitioner. Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and another …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge ¹Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

High Court of H.P.^{deduction alongwith statutory interest.”}

The issue involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was engaged as an Assistant Professor, Basic Science in the respondent-University in the

year 1995. According to the petitioner, after her appointment as such, she applied for the post of Hostel Warden also being fully eligible and was appointed as such. She continued to serve as the Hostel Warden as from the year 1995 up to 15.05.2024, that is just a few days before her superannuation, which fact was not disputed by learned counsel for the University.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Annexure P-10, dated 22.11.2024, a notice for recovery of overstay license fee has been issued to the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 9,25,790/- has been demanded from the petitioner on account of overstay license fee for the Hostel Warden accommodation which was occupied by the petitioner from 01.04.2017 to 15.05.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the demand of the said amount from the petitioner on account of alleged overstay license fee for the Hostel Warden accommodation is totally unsustainable in law. Learned counsel further submitted that the contention of the

University is that as in the month of March 2017, the petitioner had constructed her own accommodation in Shamti, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, therefore, as per the Rules and Regulations of the respondent-University dated 26.10.2015, the petitioner was not entitled for the Hostel Warden accommodation, as University employees, who owned their houses at their place of posting were not eligible for allotment of houses. He submitted that had it been a case where the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Professor etc., then probably this condition would have been applicable upon her. He argued that herein, the Hostel Warden accommodation was occupied by the petitioner legally in her capacity as Hostel Warden. The work of a Hostel Warden, that too in a girls' hostel, is such that the Hostel Warden has to stay in the premises itself to perform the duties of a Hostel Warden efficiently. The rider of a University employee not being eligible for allotment of house, if such an employee was having his/her own house at the place of posting was not attracted in the case of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-7 appended with the petition, which are the Hostel Rules and by referring to Clause 14.1.2 thereof, he submitted that the responsibilities of the Warden, which are spelled out in the said clause cannot be performed until and unless the Hostel Warden stays in the Hostel Warden accommodation and that too during the night hours. He submitted that the impugned order is completely arbitrary and is a result of a colorable exercise of power, as there were some issues between the petitioner and the then Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, he submitted that as the impugned order is indeed completely arbitrary and is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the petition be allowed by quashing Annexure P-10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is otherwise also not sustainable in law, as the same has been issued by the authorities by wrongly construing that the accommodation in possession of the petitioner was a General Pool Accommodation.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that there is neither any arbitrariness in the issuance of the impugned order nor the same is a result of colorable exercise of power. He submitted that a complaint was received against the petitioner that despite having constructed her own house in the month of March 2017 at a place known as Shamti (Solan), she continued to occupy the accommodation of the University, which was against the House Allotment Rules. Learned counsel referred to the House Allotment Rules appended with the petition along with Notification dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure P-1), and submitted that in terms of Rule 3 thereof, University employees who own houses at their place of posting shall not be eligible for allotment of house unless essentially required to stay at the campus/research station. He submitted that in the present case the presence of the petitioner was not required in the Hostel 24x7.

By referring to Annexure P-7, learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that the petitioner was

supposed to attend the office in her capacity as the Hostel Warden only for one hour. He submitted that after the petitioner had constructed her own house in the month of March 2017, she concealed this fact from the respondent-University and continued to occupy the Hostel Warden accommodation against House Allotment Rules. He further submitted that the Authority took appropriate action against the petitioner when the factum of her having own house in Shamti, Solan came to the notice of the Authority by way of a private complaint received from one Ram Singh. Therefore, the petitioner indeed has overstayed in the accommodation of the University. Annexure P-10 was issued to her after a proper inquiry was held in the matter by the Estate Officer. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no infirmity in the impugned order, the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therein.

It is not much in dispute that the petitioner after

her appointment as an Assistant Professor in the year 1995, continued to serve as a Hostel Warden before her superannuation, i.e., up to 15.05.2024. It is further also not in dispute that in her capacity as the Hostel Warden, she continued to occupy the Hostel Warden accommodation from the initial days of her appointment up to 15.05.2024. The dispute is relatable to the period as from March 2017 up to 15.05.2024.

The moot issue before this Court is whether after the petitioner had constructed her own house at Shamti, District Solan, her act of occupying the Hostel Warden accommodation, entails penal consequences as have been levied upon her vide Annexure P-10 or not.

Annexure P-1 appended with the petition is Notification dated 26.10.2015, with which the House Allotment Rules of the University are appended. Rule 3 of the House Allotment Rules reads as under: -

A perusal of Rule 3 (supra) demonstrates that those University employees who own houses at their place of posting shall not be eligible for allotment of houses, unless essentially required to stay at the campus/research station. This demonstrates that there is not a mandatory bar that any University employee, who owns his/her own house at the place of posting shall not be eligible for allotment of house under any circumstance whatsoever. Rule 3 itself has carved out an exception and the same reads that an employee may be eligible for the allotment of a house under the 2015 Rules if the employee is essentially required to stay at the campus/research station. Now, the House Allotment Rules have come into force vide Notification dated 26.10.2015. This Notification has been issued in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject matter. As observed hereinabove,

the petitioner was in occupation of the Hostel Warden accommodation since the initial days of her appointment as an Assistant Professor in the year 1995. She vacated the said premises on 15.05.2024, when she was on the verge of her superannuation. She retired in the month of June 2024 from the post of Professor and Head of the Department, Basic Sciences.

Besides holding the above office, she was also performing the duties of a Hostel Warden up to 15.05.2024. The duties of the Hostel Warden, in terms of Annexure P-7 appended with the petition are as under:-

High Court of H.P.^{Welfare Officer for disciplinary action, for dereliction of duty or}

A perusal of the responsibilities of the Warden of the respondent-University demonstrates that the Warden shall, inter alia, be responsible for the allotment of Hostel rooms, maintenance of discipline in the hostel. Additionally, High Court of H.P.^{the Warden will attend the Hostel daily for one hour at a} specified time and will be responsible for administration of staff placed under him/her. The Hostel Warden shall report to the Medical Officer all cases of illness or accident and ensure

that students get proper medical care. The Hostel Warden will inspect the kitchen, dining room, common room and other facilities regularly and ensure that the defects, if any, are rectified. The Hostel Warden shall ensure that no unauthorized person stays in the Hostel and will issue permits for the stay of guests. The Hostel Warden will also, with the help of staff, check unauthorized use of electrical appliances and shall be responsible for the proper organization and conduct of hostel functions, festivals, etc. Besides this, it is also the responsibility of the Hostel Warden to maintain discipline and good behavior, etc., in the hostel.

Now, obviously, these functions cannot be performed by a Hostel Warden in absentia. In order to ensure that there is maintenance of proper discipline in the hostel, obviously a Hostel Warden is required to stay in the hostel premises. This is more so for the reason that during the daytime, majority of the students would be attending their classes, and the hostel premises are occupied primarily only when class work is not ongoing in the University.

Even with regard to ensuring that there are proper facilities in the kitchen, dining room, and common room, this work can be done by a Warden, who is present at the time when food is being cooked in the kitchen and is being served in the dining room or common room.

Someone who is not present in the Hostel at the time when the food is being cooked obviously cannot inspect whether there is any defect in the food, etc., which is being provided to the students or not.

Further, the responsibility which has been cast upon a Hostel Warden to take care of the health of the students and ensure that proper medical care is available to them, can also not be performed by a Hostel Warden in absentia. For this also, the personal presence of the Hostel Warden within the hostel premises is required.

The personal presence of a Hostel Warden is also required to check as to whether there is any unauthorized person staying in the hostel, etc., and whether there is any unauthorized use of electrical appliances etc., or not.

Therefore, in light of the responsibilities with which the Warden has been entrusted under the relevant Rules of the respondent University, a Hostel Warden is not supposed to nor can be expected to perform all these duties either in absentia or from a distant location. For this, the personal presence of the Hostel Warden within the hostel premises is required and a Hostel Warden can obviously perform his/her responsibilities to the best of his/her abilities if he/she resides in an accommodation within the hostel premises.

Therefore, in these circumstances, a Hostel Warden is required to stay in the Hostel Warden accommodation and the exception carved out under Rule 3 of Notification dated 26.10.2015 in the House Allotment Rules framed by the University in terms of Notification dated 26.10.2015, comes to the rescue of the petitioner.

The petitioner in her capacity as a Hostel Warden and that too of a girls hostel essentially was required to stay at the campus because the hostel is indeed a part of the

campus. Therefore, in these circumstances, the stay of the petitioner in the accommodation of the Hostel Warden cannot be termed as either in breach or violation of Rule 3 of the House Allotment Rules or an overstay in terms of notice dated 22.11.2024.

This Court further finds merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accommodation of a Hostel Warden cannot be equated with the General Pool Accommodation of a University. This is for the reason that any other employee of the University, be it teaching or non-teaching faculty, if he/she has a house in the vicinity of the University and if he/she resides in his/her own house, then the accommodation of the University, which otherwise was to be occupied by such an incumbent can be given to some other employee. However, as far as a Hostel Warden is concerned, because there is only one Hostel Warden and as there is an earmarked accommodation for him/her, if the Hostel Warden is forced to stay in his/her own house, the hostel accommodation otherwise cannot be allotted to any other

person. Therefore, also, the issuance of Annexure P-10 is not sustainable in law.

Accordingly, in light of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court is of the considered view that the notice of recovery that has been issued to the petitioner is not sustainable in law, as it cannot be said that the continuation of the petitioner to occupy Hostel Warden Accommodation after she had constructed her own house in Shanti, District Solan was in violation of Rule 3 of the House Allotment Rules, this petition is allowed. Office order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-10) is quashed and set aside. No recovery shall be effected from the petitioner on the basis of impugned officer order. It is further ordered that any post-retrieval benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to, which have been withheld on account of the pendency of this writ petition, shall be forthwith released in favour of the petitioner without making any deduction, reference whereof is given in relief No (ii) in the writ petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of

accordingly.