JUDGMENT : With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding the visual/audio connectivity. I.A. No. 3686 of 2020 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 01 day in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 01 day in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 3686 of 2020 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 510 of 2018 5. The instant intra-Court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna is directed against the order/judgment dated 02.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4129 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the prayer seeking a direction upon the respondents to allot Quarter No.1308, Type EF-16 in Sector 12E at Bokaro Steel City on long term lease under the “SAIL Scheme for leasing of Houses to Employees-2001” has been denied while dismissing the writ petition. 6. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated herein read as under :- The writ petitioner-appellant was working as Operator in the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. While in service, he was allotted Quarter No.1308, Type EF-16 in Sector 12E at Bokaro Steel City. The respondent Bokaro Steel Plant had introduced a scheme sometime in the year 2001 for leasing out of its houses of various category at various Sectors to its employees so as to enable its employees/ex-employees/spouses of deceased employees to acquire Company’s houses/flats on long term lease basis. The writ petitioner-appellant, after being conversant with the clause contained in the aforesaid scheme and fulfilling eligibility criteria of being a regular employee working under the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant for a period of more than ten years, had submitted application for long term lease of the aforesaid quarter bearing No. 308, Type EF-16 situated at Sector 12E, Bokaro Steel City along with required earnest money for a sum of Rs.8,000/-. An acknowledgement receipt of the said amount was also given to him vide receipt No.00185 dated 09.01.2002. An acknowledgement receipt of the said amount was also given to him vide receipt No.00185 dated 09.01.2002. The authorities of the Bokaro Steel Plant decided to allot him the aforesaid quarter vide allotment order dated 28.01.2002 containing therein the condition of making full payment of the premium within the period of three months failing which the decision for long term lease of the aforesaid quarter would automatically be cancelled and the earnest money would stand forfeited. The grievance of the appellant-writ petitioner is that immediately after the aforesaid allotment order dated 28.01.2002, he had made application for grant of loan/advance from the Provident Fund Head but no loan/advance was sanctioned resulting into non-payment of the premium amount within the period as stipulated in the allotment order and as such, on the basis of the condition mentioned in the said allotment order, the allotment of quarter on lease stood automatically cancelled and the earnest money was also forfeited. The appellant-writ petitioner, in the meanwhile, retired from service in the year 2006, however, on one pretext or the other, he has been allowed to remain in the quarter under valid permission of the competent authority of Bokaro Steel Plant. The writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sometime in the year 2009 stating before the writ court that the amount of premium could not be paid by the petitioner due to the fault of the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant, as such, the decision taken for cancellation of allotment of quarter on long term lease and forfeiture of earnest money should be quashed. It has further been stated before the writ court that, in the year 2009, a new scheme was also been introduced by the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant for allotment of quarter but in that scheme also the case of the writ petitioner has not been considered. Further, it has been contended that, as on date, another new scheme has also been introduced wherein the decision for consideration of the case of the retired employee is also to be taken in account but even then the case of the writ petitioner is not being considered. Further, it has been contended that, as on date, another new scheme has also been introduced wherein the decision for consideration of the case of the retired employee is also to be taken in account but even then the case of the writ petitioner is not being considered. According to the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the factual aspect in right perspective, has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that if there is any condition stipulated in the order of allotment pertaining to deposit of the premium amount within a period of three months failing which the condition itself suggests that the allotment order would be cancelled and the earnest money would be forfeited, no positive direction can be issued in favour of the writ petitioner which, according to the learned counsel, is absolutely improper for the reason that, when the earnest money has been accepted by the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant and the writ petitioner has made an application for sanction of loan/advance from the statutory deposit of the writ petitioner but it was not sanctioned, the fault lies on the part of the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant. This fact, according to him, has not been considered and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge should be held to be not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant has submitted that before the writ court an exhaustive counter affidavit was filed stating inter alia that, if the writ petitioner himself has failed to discharge his liability as per the condition stipulated in the allotment order and after considering that aspect of the matter, the allotment of the quarter has not been made in favour of the writ petitioner, the same cannot be held to suffer from any infirmity. This aspect has rightly been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Hence according to the learned counsel, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He further submits that so far as the claim of the writ petitioner pertaining to the scheme of 2009 is concerned, the writ petitioner has nowhere stated in the writ petition that he made application in terms thereof. Hence according to the learned counsel, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He further submits that so far as the claim of the writ petitioner pertaining to the scheme of 2009 is concerned, the writ petitioner has nowhere stated in the writ petition that he made application in terms thereof. That apart, the scheme, which according to the writ petitioner is in vogue as of now, pertaining to consideration of allotment of quarters on long term lease basis to the retired employees, there is no instruction available with him. He further submitted that the writ petitioner is still in occupation of the quarter even though he has retired from service in the year 2006. Learned counsel for the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant, on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, has urged that the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. 8. In response thereof, Mr. K.K. Ojha, appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted that the amount of gratuity has not yet been paid and as such an appropriate direction may be given to the respondent authorities for disbursement of the amount of gratuity and if it is paid, the quarter will be vacated. However, it is stated that, taking into consideration the spread of COVID-19, atleast six months’ time may be allowed for the same and the respondent authorities may also be directed not to charge punitive rent as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2017 in the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others. He further submitted that taking into consideration the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others (supra), this Court has already passed an order in L.P.A. No. 733 of 2018 and analogous cases and other matters also. 9. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has not disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter and submitted that appropriate order may be passed in this regard basing upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others (Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2017). 10. 9. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has not disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter and submitted that appropriate order may be passed in this regard basing upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others (Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2017). 10. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, deems it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed facts in this case which reads hereunder as :- Admittedly, while the writ petitioner was working under the regular establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant, the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant came out with a scheme for allotment of quarter on long term lease basis sometime in the year 2001. In pursuance thereof, the writ petitioner made an application along with the earnest money to the tune of Rs.8,000/-. The respondent Bokaro Steel Plant decided to allot the aforesaid quarter i.e. Quarter No.1308, Type EF-16 in Sector 12E at Bokaro Steel City in favour of the writ petitioner and as would be evident from the allotment order dated 28.01.2002. The validity of the same was upto 20th February, 2002 and on payment of the premium amount within a period of three months from the date of issuance of allotment order, the validity period of allotment was to be extended as per the scheme of the allotment of quarter on long term lease basis but if the required amount was not deposited within the aforesaid period of three months, then the long term lease was to stand automatically cancelled and the earnest money was also to be forfeited. Further, admitted position is that the writ petitioner did not deposit the required amount as per the condition stipulated in the allotment order dated 28.01.2002, the consequence of the same was that the validity of the allotment lost its force after 20.02.2002 and the earnest money stood forfeited. Further, admitted position is that the writ petitioner sat idle for a period of seven years and sometime in the year 2009, he filed writ petition questioning the decision of the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant in not allotting the aforesaid quarter in pursuance of the scheme of 2001. Further, admitted position is that the writ petitioner sat idle for a period of seven years and sometime in the year 2009, he filed writ petition questioning the decision of the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant in not allotting the aforesaid quarter in pursuance of the scheme of 2001. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the condition as has been stipulated in the allotment order dated 28.01.2002 has not been complied with which is the subject matter of the present appeal. However, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has agitated the issue that in the year 2001 as also as of today one scheme for allotment of quarter on long term lease basis is in vogue and, therefore, the case of the appellant-writ petitioner is required to be considered. This aspect of the matter has seriously been objected by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to answer the issue as per the case of the writ petitioner on the basis of the scheme floated in the year 2001 or the scheme which is in vogue as per the contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. It is not in dispute, so far as the legal position is concerned, that there is no scheme before the court of appeal to enhance the scope of the original lease. Admittedly, we have found, after going through the pleadings of the writ petition wherein the prayer has been made for allotment of quarter being Quarter No.1308, Type EF-16 in Sector 12E at Bokaro Steel City on long term lease under the “SAIL Scheme for leasing of Houses to Employees-2001” that there is absence of the pleading pertaining to allotment of quarter in favour of the writ petitioner on the basis of the scheme if floated in the year 2009 or the scheme as in vogue today, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, this Court sitting in intra-court appeal, deems it fit and proper not to entertain this prayer by issuing a direction upon the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant to consider the case of the writ petitioner on the basis of the scheme of 2009 or on the basis of the scheme which according to the writ petitioner is in vogue pertaining to the retired employees. However, this Court can only make an observation that if such scheme pertaining to the retired employees has been floated by the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant, it would be open for the appellant-writ petitioner to make application, subject to the eligibility condition, which will be considered by the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any of the observation made by us in this order. 11. So far as the legality and propriety of the impugned order is concerned, it is settled legal position that if any term and condition has been agreed in between the parties, the same has scrupulously to be followed by both the parties, if it is a bilateral contract. The admitted position herein, as would be evident from the allotment order dated 28.01.2002, is that the allotment order was issued for allotment of Quarter No.1308, Type EF-16 in Sector 12E at Bokaro Steel City on the basis of the application made by the writ petitioner for allotment of the aforesaid quarter under the scheme of 2001 subject to deposit of entire amount within three months making the validity of the allotment order up to 20.02.2002 and admittedly the writ petitioner has failed to comply with the condition stipulated therein and as such, as per the condition stipulated in the allotment order, if the amount would not be deposited, the allotment order would stand cancelled automatically and the earnest money would be forfeited. Since, the writ petitioner has not deposited the amount within the stipulated period, therefore, the validity of the allotment order had already lost its efficacy after 20.02.2002 as also, as per the condition stipulated therein, the earnest money automatically stood forfeited. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge, has rightly taken into consideration the aforesaid condition stipulated in the order of allotment while dismissing the writ petition, which according to us, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge, has rightly taken into consideration the aforesaid condition stipulated in the order of allotment while dismissing the writ petition, which according to us, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. If the validity of the allotment order would be extended by passing any direction it will lead to dictating the terms of contract by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is not permissible as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70 . At paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision, it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or re-write the contract between the parties. Paragraph 11 is quoted hereunder :- “11. In the circumstances of this case, our inquiry is limited to the question whether the contract was so constructed that loss was inherent and implicit in it; if so, it ought to be modified. Otherwise, the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or rewrite the contract between the parties. In Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 174 the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking aid of the judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corp., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428 has been pleased to observe that “after the completion of the contract, no material alteration can be made in its terms except by mutual consent”. 12. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge hence we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has raised an issue of non-payment of the amount of gratuity. However, before the writ court there was no prayer with respect to disbursement of the amount of gratuity. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has raised an issue of non-payment of the amount of gratuity. However, before the writ court there was no prayer with respect to disbursement of the amount of gratuity. Since we are sitting in the intra-court appeal exercising the power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, we have found it fit to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation as also taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner has already retired in the year 2006 and as of now the amount of gratuity, which is the legitimate amount to be paid in favour of the petitioner, is lying with the respondent authority for the last 14 years. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant has informed that the appellant-writ petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the quarter from the year 2007 and hence he is liable to pay the punitive rent. In response, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2017 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed for making payment of the amount of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retention of the amount till the date of actual payment. But, at the same time, it has also been directed to charge normal rent at the rate of Rs.88/- per month for the quarter/premises in question for the period for which the appellant is/was in occupation after his superannuation. It has further been informed that the appellant-writ petitioner is still in occupation of the quarter, however, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner undertakes, on instruction of his client, that period of six months may be provided to vacate the quarter. The vacation period of six months has seriously been objected by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant, however, he has agreed to grant three months’ time. The vacation period of six months has seriously been objected by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant, however, he has agreed to grant three months’ time. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that due to spread of COVID-19, which is acute in the district of Bokaro, it would be very difficult for the appellant-writ petitioner to search out a house and apart from that, recently he has also lost his wife and therefore, six months’ time may be allowed for vacating the quarter. 14. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties in this respect and taking into consideration the spread of COVID-19 which is in increasing trend in the entire State of Jharkhand and more particularly, in the district of Bokaro, it would be difficult for the appellant-writ petitioner, who is now at the age of more than 70 years, is of the view that for the ends of justice six months’ time is required to be allowed for vacating the quarter, as undertaken by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner. Accordingly, we direct the appellant-writ petitioner to vacate the quarter within six months from today. The respondent-Bokaro Steel Plant shall make payment of the amount of gratuity during the period of six months along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as has been directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others (supra). The respondent Bokaro Steel Plant is further directed to deduct the normal rent for the quarter/premises in question from the said amount for the period for which appellant-writ petitioner had remained in occupation after his date of superannuation. So far as the electricity charges are concerned, the authority of the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant would be at liberty to deduct the same from the said amount in the same manner at the same rate in which they had deducted it in the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Others (supra). The authority of the Bokaro Steel Plant is further directed to provide a detailed statement of interest given on the gratuity amount and deductions made, to the appellant-writ petitioner at the time of handing over the cheques. 15. In the result, the instant appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions.