ORDER : The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the honorable court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside impugned order dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure P-8). (ii) That the honorable court may very kindly be pleased to issue directions to the respondents to allow the present petitioner to continue living in the same accommodation in which she is already residing.” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Research Fellow in the respondent-University on 16.3.2011 and she was provided official accommodation in block-C in terms of notification dated 16.6.2016, which reads as under: “On the recommendations of the House Allotment Committee vide Item No.1 in its meeting held on 19TH May 2016, the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor is pleased to approve the identification of three Teachers' Hostels beginning from Children Park towards Shopping Centre as Block A, Block B and Block C. The Hon'ble Vice Chancellor is further pleased to approve Block A (Adjacent to Children Park) as an - exclusive accommodation for Teachers only. Block B accommodation for Non Teaching staff depending upon the vacancy available from time to time and Block C as an exclusive accommodation for Teachers Full time Research Associates/Research Fellows shall also be eligible for accommodation in Block C only”. 3. However, in the year 2019, the petitioner was asked to vacate the official accommodation on account of ineligibility in view of notification dated 8.3.2019, which reads as under:- “On the recommendations of the House Allotment Committee meeting held on 14.12.2018 and the proceeding further approved by the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, it has been decided that Teachers Hostel will be allotted to the teachers only keeping in view the new appointments/transfers of the teachers at the main campus.” 4. The petitioner filed a representation/appeal on 9.9.2021 seeking retention of the official accommodation, which was placed before the House Allotment Committee and she was given time to vacate the official accommodation on or before 31.1.2021, failing which she was liable to pay overstayal licence fee @ Rs.18 per sq. feet, which comes to Rs.11,117/- per month in terms of Rule 17 of the respondent University being an unauthorized occupant. However, the petitioner did not vacate the accommodation and filed the instant petition. 5. The practice of retaining official accommodation by persons in official capacity beyond the tenure is over, has been repeatedly frowned upon by various Courts. feet, which comes to Rs.11,117/- per month in terms of Rule 17 of the respondent University being an unauthorized occupant. However, the petitioner did not vacate the accommodation and filed the instant petition. 5. The practice of retaining official accommodation by persons in official capacity beyond the tenure is over, has been repeatedly frowned upon by various Courts. The unauthorized occupants must recollect that the rights and duties are correlative as the rights of one person entail the duties of another person. Similarly, the duty of one person entails the rights of another person. The unauthorized occupants must appreciate that their act of overstaying in the premises directly infringes the right of another. No law or directions can entirely control this act of disobedience but for self-realization among the unauthorized occupants. 6. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.D. Bandi vs. Divisional Traffic Office, KSRTC & others (2013) 12 SCC 631 , wherein it was observed as under: “34. It is unfortunate that the employees, officers, representatives of people and other high dignitaries continue to stay in the residential accommodation provided by the Government of India though they are no longer entitled to such accommodation. Many of such persons continue to occupy residential accommodation commensurate with the office(s) held by them earlier and which are beyond their present entitlement. The unauthorized occupants must recollect that rights and duties are correlative as the rights of one person entail the duties of another person similarly the duty of one person entails the rights of another person. Observing this, the unauthorized occupants must appreciate that their act of overstaying in the premise directly infringes the right of another. No law or directions can entirely control this act of disobedience but for the self realization among the unauthorized occupants. The matter is disposed of with the above terms and no order is required in I.As for impleadment and intervention.” 7. Earlier to that, in Wazir Chand vs. Union of India & others (2001) 6 SCC 596 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a case wherein an employee of the Railways continued to occupy the government quarters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order upheld the principle that unauthorized occupants have to pay penal rents and went to the extent of holding that the Government was entitled to even withhold gratuity amount, payable to the employee, towards the penal rent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order upheld the principle that unauthorized occupants have to pay penal rents and went to the extent of holding that the Government was entitled to even withhold gratuity amount, payable to the employee, towards the penal rent. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under: “These appeals are directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant, who happens to be a retired Railway servant. Admittedly, the appellant even after superannuation, continued to occupy the Government quarter, though being placed under hard circumstances. For such continuance, the Government, in accordance with Rules, has charged penal rent from the retired Government servant, and after adjusting the dues of the Government, the balance amount of the gratuity, which was payable, has been offered to be paid, as noted in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appellants' main contention is that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal against which the Union of India had approached this Court and the Special Leave Application was dismissed as withdrawn, it was bounden duty of the Union of India not to withhold any gratuity amount, and therefore, the appellant would be entitled to the said gratuity amount on the date of retirement, and that not having been paid, he is also entitled to interest thereon. We are unable to accept this prayer of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appellant having unauthorisedly occupied the Government quarter, was liable to pay the penal rent in accordance with Rules, and therefore, there is no illegality in those dues being adjusted against the death-cum-retirement dues of the appellant. We, therefore, see no illegality in the impugned order which requires our interference. The appeals stand dismissed.” 8. At this stage, we may note that the ratio laid down in S.D. Bandi’s case (supra) has thereafter been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lok Prahari vs. State of U.P. and others (2016) 8 SCC 389 and thereafter in its latest judgment in Union of India vs. Onkar Nath Dhar, 2021 (9) SCALE 362 . Not only this, judgment in S.D. Bandi’s case has been followed by this Bench in Ratti Lal vs. State of H.P. & anr., 2020 (4) Shim. LC 2005. 9. Not only this, judgment in S.D. Bandi’s case has been followed by this Bench in Ratti Lal vs. State of H.P. & anr., 2020 (4) Shim. LC 2005. 9. Adverting to the merits of the case, the petitioner could not place any fact or law, which could support her case for overstaying in the official accommodation without any authority of law. The petitioner is bound to follow the rule of law or else it would amount to gross indiscipline. It has to be remembered that the public servants in such like matters are not requested by the Government, but are directed and the orders of the Government are in the nature of a command for the government servants. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, as a last ditch effort, would argue that since the petitioner is a lactating mother, therefore, indulgence may be shown by permitting her to retain the official accommodation. 11. Even this contention is without merit as the petitioner had been put to notice regarding consequence of retention of official accommodation beyond the stipulated period and it was only on account of lactating mother, she was accommodated upto 31.1.2021, yet she, with her eyes wide open, overstayed in the official accommodation. Therefore, the petitioner is a lactating mother cannot itself be a ground for retaining the official accommodation, more particularly, when, as per her own showing, today her child is more than two years old. 12. The compassion shown for accommodating the petitioner for overstaying in the accommodation could be at best for one or two months in terms of Onkar Nath Dhar’s case (supra), which otherwise has been shown by the respondent-University and any indulgence beyond this period would be defeating very purpose of government accommodation, which is meant to be allotted strictly in accordance with the Rules governing the same. The compassion howsoever genuine does not give a right to the petitioner for continuing to occupy a government accommodation in teeth of the decision of the respondent University vide notification dated 8.3.2019. 13. In the given circumstances, we not only do not find any merit in the instant petition, but also find this petition to be a gross abuse of process of the Court as despite there being no entitlement, the petitioner has unnecessarily managed to prolong the official accommodation by retaining the same illegally. 14. 13. In the given circumstances, we not only do not find any merit in the instant petition, but also find this petition to be a gross abuse of process of the Court as despite there being no entitlement, the petitioner has unnecessarily managed to prolong the official accommodation by retaining the same illegally. 14. Therefore, the instant petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the accommodation in question to the respondent-University on or before 21.7.2022. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 15. For compliance, list on 22.7.2022.