Jharkhand High Court
Damodar Das And Ors vs Coal Mines on 12 November, 2014
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 7640 of 2012
with
W. P. (C) No. 3777 of 2012
with
W. P. (C) No. 390 of 2013
Baban Singh ... ... Petitioner
(in W.P.(C) no. 7640/2012)
Damodar Das and Ors. ... ... Petitioners
(in W.P.(C) no. 3777/2012)
Jageshwar Prasad ... ... Petitioner
(in W.P.(C) no. 390/2013)
Versus
1. Coal Mines Provident Fund through
its Commissioner, Dhanbad
2. The Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Ranchi
3. The Chairman, JSHB, Ranchi ... ... Respondents
(in all cases)
-----------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. P. Gangopadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the RespondentCMPF : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
For the RespondentJSHB : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
10/12.11.2014Aggrieved by order dated 17.07.2009 (in all cases) passed by the Estate OfficercumRegional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF), R1, Ranchi in P.P. Case No. CPF/1(i) Estate/Eviction/R1/Ranchi and order dated 31.08.2012 in Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2009 [in W.P.(C) no. 7640 of 2012], order dated 08.05.2012 in Misc. Appeal Nos. 13/2009, 14/2009, 15/2009, 17/2009, 18/2009, 19/2009, 20/2009, 21/2009 and 22/2009 [in W.P.(C) no. 3777 of 2012] and order dated 31.08.2012 in Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 2009 [in W.P.(C) No. 390 of 2013], the petitioners have approached this Court. 2
2. The brief facts of the cases are that, the petitioners were employees of Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) at Ranchi and they were allotted quarters on different dates. About 44 quarters at Harmu Housing Colony were leased out to CMPF for its employees at Ranchi Regional office. A Committee was constituted to take a decision whether those 44 quarters should be retained by the CMPF or whether those quarters should be leased out on long term basis to its employees or sold outrightly. The matter was discussed as Item no. VI in the meeting held on 29.07.2004 in which two options were explored viz, (i) those quarters should be demolished and new houses should be constructed and, (ii) the quarters should be allotted to the ex employees on long term lease basis. Since the quarters were not formerly registered in the name of CMPF, the matter was deferred and it was decided to take necessary steps in the matter.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since those quarters were in dilapidate condition, the CMPF considered not to maintain or repair those quarters and option was given to the employees to maintain the quarters. A proposal was moved for allotment/sale of those quarters to the employees of CMPF on long term lease basis. Merely because finally the Board decided not to allot the quarters to the petitioners, the petitioners have been treated as unauthorised occupants and proceeding under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was initiated by 3 issuing notice dated 02.03.2009. Before the Estate officer the above facts were narrated by the petitioners by filing reply however, the Estate officer on an erroneous assumption that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the public premises, ordered eviction of the petitioners. The appeal filed by the petitioners vide Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 2009 and Batch cases were also dismissed holding that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the quarters belonging to the CMPF. In these facts, it is submitted that the petitioners who were allotted quarters by their employer wayback in the year, 1980, in view of the subsequent development whereby a proposal was moved for allotment of the quarters in favour of the petitioners, they cannot be treated unauthorised occupants and therefore, the orders impugned in the present proceeding are liable to be quashed.
4. Percontra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondentC.M.P.F has conteded that though, a proposal was moved for allotment/sale of 44 quarters to the employees of the C.M.P.F., the Board of C.M.P.F in its 142nd meeting turned down the proposal. The official communications would not confer any right upon the petitioners to raise the claim that they in expectation of allotment of quarters, remained in the quarters allotted to them, even after their superannuation from service.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondentJharkhand State Housing Board has also supported order dated 17.07.2009 (in all cases), order dated 31.08.2012 4 [in W.P.(C) no. 7640 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No. 390 of 2013] and order dated 08.05.2012 [in W.P.(C) no. 3777 of 2012].
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record.
7. The petitioners have claimed that they were allotted quarters in late 1980s by their employerCMPF however, I find that after superannuation of the petitioners from service no order has been issued permitting the petitioners to retain the quarters allotted to them. It has also not been brought on record that the petitioners ever sought any permission from the respondentCMPF for retaining the quarters on payment of usual rent. The proposal moved for allotment of the quarters, acquired from the then Bihar State House Board, to its employees, has finally not been accepted by the respondentCMPF. The communications referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners indicate that the proposal was specifically turned down and it was decided not to either allot or sale the quarters to the exemployees or to return the house to the Jharkhand State Housing Board. The petitioners were issued showcause notices after their superannuation from service. The petitioners have not brought on record any document to indicate that they were permitted to retain the quarters allotted to them after their superannuation from service.
8. I find no infirmity in the orders impugned in the present proceeding and therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. 5 However, I find that the petitioners were classIII and classIV employees who have superannuated from service long back and therefore, it is expected that the respondentCMPF would not impose any penal rent on the petitioners for occupation of the quarters by them.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/ .A.F.R.