Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 682 (JHR)

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar

2020-06-30

RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. Both the appeals since are against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3834 of 2008 disposed of on 11.04.2018, L.P.A. No.423 of 2018 has been filed by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. being aggrieved with the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.3834 of 2008 while L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 has been filed by the appellants who are respondents in L.P.A. No.423 of 2018 also against the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.3834 of 2008. I.A. Nos.10357 of 2019 & 11092 of 2019: 3. Both the appeals have been filed beyond the period of limitation. Separate interlocutory applications have been filed by the appellants of both the appeals under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 80 & 81 days respectively. 4. This Court, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the instant applications as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeals on the ground of limitation, this Court is on considered view that it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeals on merit, accordingly, the delay of 80 & 81 days respectively in filing the appeals, are condoned. 5. In the result, the instant interlocutory applications stand allowed. L.P.A. Nos.423 of 2018 & 478 of 2018 : 6. The brief facts of the case which requires to be referred herein are as under: The appellants, are sons of Smt. Savitri Sinha, who is the wife of ex-employee working under the Steel Authority of India Ltd., namely, Parash Nath Singh, who joined the service on 07.05.1969 in the Education Department of Bokaro Steel Plant and superannuated as Vice Principal on 31.12.1996 and was allotted with residential accommodation on 17.12.1992 being Quarter No.606, Sector III/E, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro (Jharkhand) were living in the said quarter along with his family members. The service rules of the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant has a provision entitling the employee to retain the company quarter till superannuation from service, however, the Management has permitted the concerned to retain the quarter till 31.08.1997. The service rules of the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant has a provision entitling the employee to retain the company quarter till superannuation from service, however, the Management has permitted the concerned to retain the quarter till 31.08.1997. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. came out with a scheme for allotment of house/flat on long term lease of 33 years (renewal) under “SAIL Scheme of Leasing of Houses” The wife of the ex-employee made an application for allotment of house by making deposit of a sum of Rs.22,000/-on 01.06.2001 for lease of Bokaro Steel Plant Quarter No.606, Sector III/E. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. came out with a revised allotment order on 08.09.2001 making it valid up to September 15, 2001 with a condition to deposit the reset of the amount, failing which, scheme to grant long term lease would automatically stand cancelled and the earnest money will stand forfeited. The applicants made an application for adjustment of the rest of the amount from the legally payable post-retiral dues which has been adjusted but even thereafter a sum of Rs.3,34,089.80 was remained to be paid in favour of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and to comply with the same, again time till 10.06.2002 was allowed, failing which, earnest money was to be forfeited as would be evident from Annexre-5 appended to the paperbook. The rest of the amount as per the request made in Annexure-5 could not have been deposited and also the time to deposit the amount on or after 10.06.2002 has not been extended. The father of the petitioners, since had retired on 31.12.1996 but not vacated the company quarter, the Bokaro Steel Plant instituted a case for eviction under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971) in which appearance has been made by the mother of the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 and after deliberating upon the issues, the Estate Officer has passed judgment on 25.05.2002 in Case No.A/E 59/98 in which an order has been passed holding the mother of the appellants as unauthorized occupant of the premises in question since 01.09.1997 and as such, liable for eviction under Section 5 of the Act, 1971 as also the order for payment of damages had been passed separately. The order passed by the Estate Officer in Case No.A/E 59/98 was assailed before the appellate forum as under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.07.2005. The appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 invoked the jurisdiction of this Court as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order as contained in Letter dated 25.05.2002 by which they were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,34,089.80 towards total cost of quarter and lease rent to be paid by her. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by coming to a finding with a direction that the writ-petitioners/appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 cannot be said to be in illegal possession of the said quarter with a further direction to vacate the quarter within six weeks but market/penal rent shall not be charged by the respondents/Steel Authority of India Ltd. and only normal rent which is charged by the respondent-Company, in addition to the usual payment of water and electricity charges, shall be charged for retention of the said quarter. 7. The writ-petitioners/appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 have filed the instant appeal on the ground that the decision of the authority as contained in letter dated 25.05.2002 is absolutely improper and further the stand which was agitated by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. before the writ Court that now the allotment letter dated 08.09.2001 will be construed to be cancelled, cannot be said to be sustainable in the eye of law as because the application was pending for final decision and the amount of gratuity was also lying with the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and as per the consent furnished the rest of the amount ought to have been adjusted from the gratuity amount for taking final decision for allotment of the quarter in question. 8. 8. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. has filed the instant appeal being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge against the finding recorded therein holding the writ-petitioners/appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 not in illegal possession of the said quarter since according to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. the finding has already been recorded by the Estate Officer as under Section 7 of the Act, 1971 which has also been affirmed by the appellate court by invoking the jurisdiction as conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 and when there is conclusive finding of the competent authority the writ Court ought not to have come to a finding holding the possession of the said quarter not to be an illegal possession. If that finding would remain intact the order passed by the authority/appellate forum under the Act, 1971 would be meaningless. 9. The learned counsel for the Steel Authority of India Ltd. has submitted that the Steel Authority of India Ltd. may be allowed right to recover the amount on account of retention of the quarter as per the conclusive finding arrived at by the Estate Officer as under Section 7 of the Act, 1971 having been affirmed by the appellate forum as under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 but having not granted such liberty, the learned Single Judge has actually interfered with the finding recorded by the quasi-judicial authority. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants in L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 has relied upon an order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.733 of 2018 along with other analogous appeals which have been disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2020, according to him, almost on the similar issue the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the appeals in terms of the direction contained in the case of Ram Naresh Singh vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the ex-employees who were retaining the company’s quarters have been directed to vacate the quarters and the day when the vacant possession of the quarter would be handed over to the authority of the Bokaro Steel Ltd., the competent authority of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. will hand over the cheques of gratuity amount along with interest, however, the authority would deduct the normal rent for the quarter/premises in question from the said amount for the period for which the private parties/employees had remained in occupation after their respective date of superannuation and therefore, submission has been made that the authorities of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. may be directed to disburse the amount of gratuity along with the statutory interest as applicable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and they may be directed to deduct the normal rent apart from the water and electricity charges instead of market/penal rent. 11. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also after going across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, has found from the material available on record certain admitted facts to the effect that the father of the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 who was working as Teacher in a School under the Bokaro Steel Plant and was superannuated on 31.12.1996. He was allotted a quarter being Quarter No.606, Sector III/E, Bokaro Steel City. He has retained the quarter even after superannuation from service but the Bokaro Steel Plant came out with a scheme for allotment of house/flat on long term lease of 33 years (renewal) under “ SAIL Scheme for Leasing of Houses” by submitting an application on 01.06.2001 along with earnest money of an amount of Rs.22,000/-. He has retained the quarter even after superannuation from service but the Bokaro Steel Plant came out with a scheme for allotment of house/flat on long term lease of 33 years (renewal) under “ SAIL Scheme for Leasing of Houses” by submitting an application on 01.06.2001 along with earnest money of an amount of Rs.22,000/-. In terms of the said application, a revised allotment order was issued on 08.09.2001, the revised premium of the said quarter worked out to Rs.3,80,000/-after adjustment of the earnest money of Rs.22,000/-it has been advised to deposit a premium of Rs.3,58,000/-. The possession of the said quarter has been decided to be formally given as lessee on payment of the aforesaid revised premium along with annual lease rent and other charges and on execution to lease. The allotment has been made valid up to September 15, 2001 making it necessary to deposit the rest of the amount, failing which, the claim to grant long term lease would automatically stand cancelled and the earnest money will stand forfeited but before the revised allotment order dated 08.09.2001 the Steel Authority of India Ltd. has instituted a case under Section 5 of the Act, 1971 being Case No.A/E 59/98 for a declaration of unauthorized occupant of the public premises by the mother of the appellants. The Estate Officer has issued notice requiring the mother of the appellants to make objection, if any, in turn thereof, objection has been filed and on due deliberation of the issues a finding has been arrived at holding the mother of the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 as unauthorized occupant of the premises in question since 01.09.1997 and hence is liable for eviction under Section 5 of the Act, 1971 with an observation that the order for payment of damages has also been passed separately. 12. The mother of the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 19.07.2005 by the concerned District Judge. It has been informed that against the judgment dated 19.07.2005 passed in Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2002 Civil Revision has been filed but the same has also been dismissed, however, no details along with the number of the said civil revision has been stated in the pleading. 13. It has been informed that against the judgment dated 19.07.2005 passed in Misc. Appeal No.36 of 2002 Civil Revision has been filed but the same has also been dismissed, however, no details along with the number of the said civil revision has been stated in the pleading. 13. The appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 remained in occupation of the said quarter even after the judgment passed in Case No.A/E 59/98 decided on 25.05.2002 by the Estate Officer under the Act, 1971. The mother of the appellant in L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 could not have deposited the rest of the amount and hence, the validity of the revised allotment order dated 08.09.2001 has been extended till 10.06.2002 vide order dated 25.05.2002 but the rest of the amount could not have been deposited rather the appellants have challenged the communication dated 25.05.2002 being aggrieved with the same by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3834 of 2008. 14. The learned Single Judge has considered the new allotment which was issued on 08.09.2001 and held the occupation of quarter by the writ petitioner/appellants, as authorized. 15. The question herein as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the Steel Authority of India Ltd. that when there is conclusive finding arrived at under the statute of the Act, 1971 by the quasi-judicial authority confirmed by the appellate forum the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge holding the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 not in illegal possession of the said quarter, cannot be held to be sustainable and if the said finding will remain intact it will amount to interference with the order passed under the provision of the Act, 1971. 16. This Court, on appreciation of the rival submission on the issue as discussed above, is of the view that the contention which has been raised by the appellants of the L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 cannot be held to be proper. 16. This Court, on appreciation of the rival submission on the issue as discussed above, is of the view that the contention which has been raised by the appellants of the L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 cannot be held to be proper. It is for the reason that when under the specific statute, i.e., Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, an order has been passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the said statute holding the mother of the appellants as unauthorized occupant of the premises in question which has been confirmed by the appellate forum as under the provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1971 which has also been declined to be interfered with by the revisional court, meaning thereby, that there is conclusive finding about the unauthorized occupation of the premises in question as also attained finality up to the level of the Revisional Court and hence, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge holding the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 not in illegal possession, after issuance of the allotment of quarter on 08.09.2001 will amount to interfering with the order passed by the authority under the provision of the Act, 1971 even though the same has been confirmed up to the revisional stage. In view thereof, according to our considered view, the finding of the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the finding recorded by the authority under the provision of Act, 1971 since has been interfered with the same will be nothing but interfering with the decision of the quasi-judicial authority confirmed by the appellate forum as also by the revisional court which, according to our considered view, cannot be held to be sustainable. 17. 17. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 has made submission, on instruction, that the appellants are ready to vacate the quarter but due to pandemic COVID-19 time till 01.10.2020 may be allowed with a direction upon the Steel Authority of India Ltd. to charge the normal rent apart from the water and electricity charges as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2017 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has disposed of the analogous appeals directing the Steel Authority of India Ltd. to release the gratuity along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of retention of the amount till the date of actual payment. But, at the same time, it is also stated in the order that it will be open for the respondents to charge normal rent @ Rs.88/-per month for the quarter/premises in question for the period for which the appellants was in occupation. In case No.A/E 59/98 disposed of on 25.05.2002 under the provision of Section 5 of the Act, 1971 it has been ordered for payment of damages for which separate order was passed. In that view of the matter, he has also sought for such liberty. Learned counsel for the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 has seriously objected to such submission by advancing his argument that there is no separate order for payment of damages as has been observed by the Estate Officer in the order dated 25.05.2002. 18. This Court, deliberating upon the issue, considering the fact that the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 have undertaken to vacate the quarter by 01.10.2020, hence, following directions are being issued: (i) The appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 are hereby directed to vacate the quarter No.606, Sector III/E positively by 01.10.2020. The time till 01.10.2020 is being granted taking into consideration the spread of pandemic COVID-19. So far as the water and electricity charges are concerned, the authority of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. would be at liberty to deduct the same from the said amount in the same manner at the same rate as they have deducted in the case of Ram Naresh Singh. So far as the water and electricity charges are concerned, the authority of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. would be at liberty to deduct the same from the said amount in the same manner at the same rate as they have deducted in the case of Ram Naresh Singh. (ii) The Steel Authority of India Ltd. is directed to disburse the amount of gratuity immediately within a week from the date when the appellants would surrender and hand over the vacant possession of the quarter No.606, Sector III/E along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum. The authority of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. is further directed to provide a detailed statement of interest given on the gratuity amount and the deductions made at the time of handing over the cheque. (iii) So far as the direction for payment of damages or normal rent @ Rs.88/-is concerned, this Court is of the view that if the Estate Officer has passed an order for payment of damages, certainly, the case in hand cannot have parity with the case of the appellant of Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2017, however, if there is no order for payment of damages, certainly, the appellants of the L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 are liable for normal rent @ Rs.88/-as per the direction passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Naresh Singh vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2017 as because before the Hon'ble Apex Court also, the similar issue was the subject matter, however, in the said case there was no reference of the order passed by the authority under the Act, 1971. In view of such factual aspect, we are of the view that appropriate direction is required to be passed for payment of damages if a separate order to that effect has already been passed by the Estate Officer as has been observed in the order dated 25.05.2002 passed in Case No.A/E 59/98 by taking appropriate steps in this regard. However, if there is no separate order passed by the Estate Officer, as has been observed in the order dated 25.05.2002, Steel Authority of India Ltd. cannot be allowed to charge damages. However, if there is no separate order passed by the Estate Officer, as has been observed in the order dated 25.05.2002, Steel Authority of India Ltd. cannot be allowed to charge damages. If no direction has been passed by the Estate Officer in terms of the observation made in the order dated 25.05.2002 passed in Case No.A/E 59/98 the Steel Authority of India Ltd. will only be entitled to charge normal rent @ Rs.88/-per month for the quarter/premises in question for the period for which the appellants of L.P.A. No.478 of 2018 were in occupation. 19. In that view of the matter, both the appeals stand disposed of. 20. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.