Jharkhand High Court
Ram Naresh Singh & Ors vs Bokaro Steel Plant & Ors on 10 December, 2012
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 373 of 2012.
---
Ram Naresh Singh ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan,
Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.
2. Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant,
Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.
3. Executive Director (P & A), Bokaro Steel
Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro.
4. General Manager (Town Administration),
Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro
Steel City, Bokaro.
5. Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat
Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. ... ... ... Respondents.
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
---
For the Petitioner : M/s. Manoj Tandon and Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
---
07. 10.12.2012. The petitioner was under the employment of the respondents and stood superannuated on reaching the age of superannuation, on 30.6.2006. According to the petitioner, he was not paid all the retiral dues including the amount of gratuity saying that it shall be paid only when the petitioner vacates and hand over the possession of the official quarter allotted to him while he was in service.
Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has already been dispossessed by the respondents by using force, therefore, in any case, all the amount retained by the respondents should be paid to the petitioner forthwith along with statutory interest. Mr. Tandon has further argued that even if it is presumed that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the residential quarter allotted to him, the only course open to the respondents was to invoke the provision of the Public Premises Act (for short "the Act") for the eviction of the petitioner and for determination of the damages/mesne profits for the unauthorised occupation of the official quarter.
On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the amount retained was towards the security for occupying the official quarter even after the retirement. His further contention is that since the petitioner himself had agreed for retention of the amount towards the security, therefore, there was no need to invoke the provision of the Act. His next contention is that in view of the submission of Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, that since the petitioner is now not in possession of the official quarter, there should 2. not be any problem in releasing the amount after making deduction of the damages for unauthorised occupation of the official quarter.
Section 7 of the Act reads as under:--
"Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises.--
(1) Where any person, is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
(2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
[(2-A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978 (14 of 1978).] (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer."
In the humble opinion of this Court, in view of section 7 of the Act, the respondents could have approached the prescribed authority for determination of the penal rent/ damages/mesne profits , but, in any case, the respondents have no jurisdiction to determine the same themselves and to deduct the same from the post retiral benefits, without invoking the provision of the Act.
Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that whatever penal rent/damages/mesne profits are determined under the Act shall be paid by the petitioner or can be recovered by the respondents by adopting the due process of law.
In view of the observations made hereinabove, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the entire amount retained by them to the petitioner forthwith along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. However, it is clarified that the respondents shall be at liberty to invoke the provision of the Act for determination/recovery of the penal rent/damages/mesne profits for unauthorised occupation and use of the public premises by the petitioner.
(Alok Singh, J.) AKS.Cp.2.