Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 738 (CAL)

Ajit Kumar Chatterjee v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

2019-07-22

AMRITA SINHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is a retired employee of the Eastern Coalfields Limited. He retired from service on and from 1st October, 2010. On his retirement the petitioner was paid his provident fund, gratuity and pension. 2. While the petitioner was in service he was allotted an official quarter. The petitioner is occupying the said official quarter till date. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are not releasing his leave encashment, performance related pay, puja bonus for the year 2008 and superannuation benefits for the executives under the new Pension Scheme. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that after his retirement the petitioner has received a sum of rupees ten lakh on account of gratuity, rupees twenty one lakh ninety thousand and four hundred seventy one on account of his provident fund dues. Pension has also been released in his favour. 5. The respondents have denied that the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment of the amount as mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner is also not entitled to performance related pay as alleged. The scheme of Puja Bonus is applicable only to the non- executives and the petitioner being an executive is not entitled to the same. The petitioner is also not entitled to superannuation benefit as there is no such scheme for the executives. 6. It has been submitted that as per the Circular bearing reference no. ECL/C-5(D)/3494 dated 15th March, 2005 the Eastern Coalfields Limited has taken a decision that the leave encashment payment of the employees, both executives and non-executives, on superannuation, shall be released only after vacation of the Company's quarters. In view of the aforesaid Circular the leave encashment, if any, payable to the petitioner will be released only after the petitioner vacates the official quarter of the Company. 7. The petitioner filed an earlier writ petition being W.P no. 32872 (W) of 2014 praying for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse a sum of rupees nine lakh approximately as his leave encashment and performance related pay along with interest of 18%. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Court on 10th April, 2017 wherein it has been recorded that "Mr. 32872 (W) of 2014 praying for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse a sum of rupees nine lakh approximately as his leave encashment and performance related pay along with interest of 18%. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Court on 10th April, 2017 wherein it has been recorded that "Mr. Roy, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in case the remaining amount of the retiral benefits which has not been released in favour of the petitioner is released, he shall vacate the company quarter under his occupation within a week thereafter. It was only because Mr. Majumder, the learned advocate for the respondents objected to the submission of the petitioner that even seven years after the petitioner's retirement, he has not vacated the company quarter. 8. I directed the petitioner to file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he shall vacate the company quarter under his occupation within seven days from the date of receipt of the remaining amount of the retiral dues from the respondents. 9. Today when the matter has been taken up, Mr. Roy prays for accommodation. In view of what has been recorded earlier, I am not willing to grant any further accommodation to the petitioner for filing the undertaking. 10. Since the petitioner has not prayed for release of his remaining retiral dues in the writ petition, the Court cannot direct the respondents to make the payment on the verbal prayer made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 11. Since the petitioner has not filed any undertaking, the question of granting any further time to vacate the company quarter does not arise. In fact, I dispose of the writ petition without any order. 12. Mr. Majumder submitted that the respondents have already initiated a proceeding for recover of the company quarter from the possession of the petitioner. They shall be at liberty to proceed with the same." 13. From the aforesaid order it appears that the said prayer of the petitioner was disallowed by the Court when he filed the earlier writ petition. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on the self-same cause of action, with the same prayer. 14. They shall be at liberty to proceed with the same." 13. From the aforesaid order it appears that the said prayer of the petitioner was disallowed by the Court when he filed the earlier writ petition. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on the self-same cause of action, with the same prayer. 14. Once a prayer has been declined by the Court the same cannot be re-agitated in a separate collateral proceeding as the same is hit by the principles of res judicata. The prayer of the petitioner for releasing his provident fund dues and his claim regarding performance related pay has already been refused by the Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. The order, not being challenged, has attained finality. The same cannot be reopened once again in the instant writ petition. 15. The petitioner is occupying the official quarter allotted to him during his service tenure, till date, even though the petitioner retired from service way back on 1st October, 2010. 16. The petitioner has averred in his writ petition that the occupation of his quarter cannot be said to be unauthorized as it is not making any loss to the Company. Rather, because of the occupation of the quarter by the petitioner, the respondents are relieved from the botheration for protection of the quarter from rank trespassers and unauthorized occupants. He has further stated that even if penal rent is assessed the same will not exceed rupees one lakh. 17. The aforesaid is no reason to hold on to an official quarter for nearly a decade after retirement. Maintenance of the service quarter is the duty and responsibility of the Company. The same ought not to be a matter of concern of a pensioner. It is obligatory on the part of an employee to vacate and handover peaceful vacant possession of the official quarter to the employer immediately on retirement or soon thereafter. 18. An employee is allotted an accommodation during his service tenure on payment of the charges as fixed by the employer. Under no circumstances can the said occupation be extended after the employee retires from service. The service quarters are meant for service holders and not for occupation of the pensioners. 18. An employee is allotted an accommodation during his service tenure on payment of the charges as fixed by the employer. Under no circumstances can the said occupation be extended after the employee retires from service. The service quarters are meant for service holders and not for occupation of the pensioners. The employer may permit the retired employee to retain the official quarter after retirement for a very limited period, upon payment of the necessary charges, if occasion so arises, provided the Rules permit the same. The over stay cannot extend for an indefinite period. The petitioner, after his retirement, is holding on to the official quarter for nearly a decade by now. 19. It is settled law, that anyone who retains the official quarter after retirement, without any legal authority is considered to be in unauthorized occupation of the public premises. 20. Writ Court, being a Court of equity, has a duty to come to the aid of a litigant who approaches the Court with a genuine grievance. In the instant case, the petitioner has come up with a stale claim and that too with unclean hands. 21. The petitioner himself is indulging in an illegal act by not vacating the official accommodation even after nine years and ten months of superannuation. The Company is acting in accordance with their own circular. 22. The High Court in its high prerogative writ jurisdiction ought not to entertain a litigant who does not have a bona fide claim. The claim of the petitioner is absolutely mala fide. No relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in the instant case. 23. The petitioner is directed to make an ad hoc payment of rupees one lakh only to the respondent Company with a period of thirty days. The said sum will be adjusted on account of the occupation charges of the quarter which the petitioner is occupying unauthorisedly. 24. The Court while disposing the earlier writ petition granted liberty to the respondent Company to proceed with the proceedings for recovery of the Company's quarter. The respondents submit that steps have been taken against the petitioner for recovery of the quarter under the Public Premises (Evictionof Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 but the same has not been concluded till date. The pace at which the recovery proceeding is advancing speaks volumes about the intension of the Company to get their quarter vacated. The respondents submit that steps have been taken against the petitioner for recovery of the quarter under the Public Premises (Evictionof Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 but the same has not been concluded till date. The pace at which the recovery proceeding is advancing speaks volumes about the intension of the Company to get their quarter vacated. Had the Company proceeded diligently the proceeding ought to have been concluded long time back. 25. The respondent Company is directed to conclude the recovery proceeding, in accordance with law, within a period of six months. W.P No. 19809 (W) of 2018 along with CAN 4298 of 2019 is disposed of. 26. Urgent certified photo copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.