Jharkhand High Court
Madhaba Nanda Jena vs Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Steel Author on 10 April, 2012
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4219 of 2009
Madhaba Nanda Jena ............... Petitioner
Versus
Chairman-cum- M.D., Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bokaro Steel Plant & others
......... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
-----------
05 /10.04.2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction upon the respondents to pay pension- cum -all retiral dues with interest as early as possible to the petitioner because petitioner had retired from his service on 28.2.2003 from the post of Chief Engineer(Civil), CRM, Steel Authority of India Limited , Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that till date retirement benefits such as gratuity, bonus, pension with interest had not been provided to the petitioner.
Pursuant to the last order passed by this court on 20.10.2011 counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents through the deponent, Chief Executive Officer working in the Bokaro Steel Plant under Steel Authority of India Ltd. The respondents have in so many paragraphs stated that the petitioner after superannuation on 28.2.2003 continued to illegally occupy the quarter of the company for which eviction proceeding was initiated and the order was passed on 8.5.2008 by the Estate Court, Bokaro. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro on 11.5.2009 in Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2008. Despite giving an undertaking to vacate the quarter, thereafter the petitioner did not vacate the same and was finally evicted on 29.6.2010. However, petitioner still managed to illegally occupy two "D" type quarters by breaking lock of the quarters for which another Eviction Case No. A/E No. 659 of 2011 has been filed against the petitioner in the court of Estate Officer. The respondents have discontinued the electricity etc. of the quarters occupied by the petitioner and after calculating the penal rent an amount of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs has been adjusted as against total recoverable dues against the petitioner amounting to Rs. 6,14,553.69. Thus further sum of Rs. 2,64, 553.69 is recoverable from the petitioner for which , notice dated 22.11.2011 has been sent to the petitioner. It is, therefore submitted on their behalf that petitioner does not deserve any compassion since, he has not come to the court with clean hand and has been illegally occupying quarters of the company even after his retirement.
-2-Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan has placed some document which shows that payment has been made to the petitioner under different heads of Provident Fund, SAIL employees superannuation fund , gratuity, leave salary etc. and wages arrears. The detail of which are being recorded herein below:-
Additional Comments M.N.Jena Details of payments made to him
1. Provident Fund Rs. 486536.29 on 01.03.2003 vide Cheque No. 331457
2. SAIL Employees Superannuation Paid Fund
3. Gratuity, Leave Salary etc Rs. 4000153.00 Less HBA, IT etc. Rs. 113429.00 Paid Rs. 266723.00 on 08.05.2003
5. Wage Arrear Rs. 195400.00 on 22.09.2004
---------- ----------------------------------
It is, therefore, submitted that after payment of these amounts still the amount of Rs. 2,64, 553.69 remains to be recovered from the petitioner on account of the penal rent charged against him for illegally occupying the quarter.
However, the aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the petitioner nor any rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has been paid a number of payment under different heads relating to post retiremental benefit, arrear of salary etc., however because of his unauthorized conduct still a sum of Rs. 2,64, 553.69 remains to be recovered from him as penal rent.
This court is, therefore, not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty