JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 534 of 2020 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 58 days, which has occurred in preferring the present appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 3. Accordingly, the delay of 58 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned and this application stands allowed. L. P. A. No. 709 of 2018 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 5. There is no iota of doubt from any angle that there was no requirement of filing this appeal by the writ petitioners as the learned Single Judge has already granted sufficient time to hand over the possession of the respective quarters to the respondents and direction was given to release the gratuity along with interest payable to the writ petitioners. Still the writ petitioners did not vacate the quarters though they gave undertakings that they will vacate it rather they have filed this appeal and remained further in occupation of the quarter for about two years unauthorizedly. Thus, in our opinion, they are liable to pay rent for unauthorized period of occupation in view of the decision rendered in Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2017) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a decision passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors Vs. Sada Nand Singh (L.P.A. No. 733 of 2018 and analogous cases). 6. In view of the conduct of the writ petitioners-appellants also, we are not persuaded to intervene in the matter as they would be required to vacate the quarter. We were also of the opinion to impose heavy cost and penal rent in view of their conduct but at the time of hearing learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that all of them are retired persons and they would face great hardship if such type of direction or order is passed. We were also of the opinion to impose heavy cost and penal rent in view of their conduct but at the time of hearing learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that all of them are retired persons and they would face great hardship if such type of direction or order is passed. In that view of the matter, we are refraining ourselves from imposing of penal rent but as per the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors Versus Sada Nand Singh (L.P.A. No. 733 of 2018 and analogous cases) following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2017), the writ petitioners would be required to pay rent at the normal rate if they vacate the quarters within a period of four weeks from today. They will also have to pay the rent at normal rate for the unauthorised period of occupation which shall be calculated by the respondents and would be supplied to the writ petitioners along with the electricity and water charges, if payable. 7. In case of non-compliance of the direction, i.e., if they do not vacate the quarter within a period of four weeks from today and do not pay the calculated rent at normal rate within a period of three months from the date of the same being raised then in such case they would be liable to pay penal rent fixed in accordance with law by the respondents authorities. If they do not vacate the quarters then the authorities would be at liberty to get them vacated through the process of law and recover penal rent also. 8. However, it is made clear that the aforesaid would have no connection with the release of gratuity and payment of statutory interest upon the gratuity amount as per law. 9. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.