Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 198 (ORI)

Abhimanyu Mohanty v. Rourkela Steel Plant

2001-04-26

A.S.NAIDU

body2001
ORDER The petitioner, an Ex-employee of Rourkela Steel Plant has approached the portals of this Court challenging the order dated 28.12.99 issued by the Steel Authority turning down the request for retaining the quarters under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as well as initiation of the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Senior Stores Keeper in the Fertilizer Plant of Rourkela Steel Plant. He availed the Scheme introduced by the opp. parties for voluntary retirement and applied for the same. His request found assent of the opp. parties and he was permitted to retire voluntarily from service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 (in short VR Scheme, 1999). Though there are several allegations and counter allega¬tions, the present dispute is confined only to the question of occupation of the quarters which was allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to occupy the quarters for 22 months after his application for voluntary retirement is acceded to. On receiving the Rule, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opp. parties. Apart from repudiating the averments made in the writ application, it is alleged by the authorities that the son of the petitioner has encroached a portion of the land belonging to the opp. party-Company and that is one of the grounds in not permitting the petitioner to occupy the quarters. A rejoinder affidavit is also filed by the petitioner con¬troverting the averments made in the counter affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. For effective adjudication of the inter se dispute, the provisions stipulated for allotment of quarters to Ex-servicemen under the V. R. Scheme, 1999 are to be looked into. Clause-2 of the aforesaid Scheme reads as follows : “2.0 : Nature and period of occupation. 2.1 : The allotment of quarters under the Scheme shall be on Licence basis reserving monthly Licence fee, electricity charges, water charges at the prescribed rate as at Annexure-1, for a period of 22 months only." Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the aforesaid Rule, vehemently submits that the petitioner who has retired from service with effect from 30.9.99 has the right to occupy the quarters for a period of 22 months which comes to an end only in the month of July, 2001. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the aforesaid Rule, vehemently submits that the petitioner who has retired from service with effect from 30.9.99 has the right to occupy the quarters for a period of 22 months which comes to an end only in the month of July, 2001. It is further submitted that as his occupation of the quarters is sanctioned by the rules framed, initiation of proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is unjust and illegal, and the same being contrary to the provisions, has to be quashed. At the other hand, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Steel Authority with his usual vehemence submitted that occupation of quarters by the petitioner who is an Ex-employee, is subject to other terms and conditions. It is submitted that the son of the petitioner has forcibly encroached upon same lands belonging to the opp. party-Company and is not vacating the same. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be permitted to occupy the quarters and rightly a proceeding under the Public Premises Eviction Act has been initiated. In any view of the matter chal¬lenging initiation of the proceeding before this Court in writ application is not maintainable and it is open for the petitioner to raise the question of maintainability of the proceeding before the authority under the Special Act, and this writ application should be dismissed in limini. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Law is well settled that for an act of commission or omis¬sion of a son, the father cannot be penalised. It is open for the authorities to proceed against the son of the petitioner if he has acted contrary to law and law will take its own course. Admittedly, the petitioner is an Ex-employee and he was permitted to avail retirement under the V.R. Scheme, 1999. The rights of the petitioner are circumscribed under the provisions of the afore¬said Scheme, and the same cannot be curtailed for any reason. Clause-2.1 of the Scheme quoted supra clearly reveals that an employee availing voluntary retirement shall occupy the quarters on Licence basis for a period of 22 months only. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30.9.99 and the period of 22 months shall expire in July, 2001. Clause-2.1 of the Scheme quoted supra clearly reveals that an employee availing voluntary retirement shall occupy the quarters on Licence basis for a period of 22 months only. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30.9.99 and the period of 22 months shall expire in July, 2001. Thus, peti¬tioner’s possession is protected by the aforesaid clause and I have no hesitation to hold that initiation of a proceeding under the Public Premises Eviction Act before the period of Licence is expired, is unjust and illegal. Be that as it may, without going into the controversy raised by both the parties and without entering into the arena of dis¬puted question of facts, I feel that ends of justice and equity would very well be served if the petitioner is permitted to occupy the quarters allotted in his favour of which he is in possession as on date till July, 2001 in consonance with Clause-2.1 of the V.R. Scheme, 1999. I, therefore, dispose of this writ application with the direction that possession of the petitioner with regard to the quarters which is in his possession, shall not be disturbed for a period of 22 months i.e. from the date of retirement which according to both the counsel will expire in July 2001. It is needless to say that the petitioner without demeanour shall vacate the quarters by the end of July 2001 failing which it would be held that he has violated the orders of this Court.