Jharkhand High Court
Sawalia Singh vs M/S Steel Authority Of India Limited on 15 March, 2023
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6507 of 2012
1. Sawalia Singh, son of Late Ramashish Singh
2. Ram Swaroop Singh, son of Sri Ram Bhajo Singh
3. Md. J.A. Malick, son of Md. Juna Id Ahsan Malick
4. Ram Vinod Chaudhary, son of Late Sri Govind Chaudhary
5. Upendra Kumar Jaiswal, son of Late Mahabir Prasad Jaiswal
6. P.G. Chandran, son of Sri P.S. Gopalan
7. Shankar Prasad, son of Late Jakishan Lal
8. Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Sundar Prasad Singh
9. Madhawa Sharan Singh, son of Late Ram Chandra Bhagat
10.Bhaiya Binod Kumar Sinha, son of Late Bhaiya Dhaneswar Prasad
11.Neera Akhouri, wife of Late Kamal Kumar Akhouri
12.Swami Nath Jayaswal, son of Sri Mahendra Choudhary
13.Anil Kumar Dubey, son of Sri K.C. Dubey
14.Sitamdeo Modi, son of Late Mahru Modi
15.Sunder Somjimal Chhapru, son of Late S.P. Chhapru
16.Brijnandan Singh, son of Sri Kedar Nath Singh
17.Shyama Nand Teriar, son of Late Achuta Nand Teriar
18.Vinod Kumar Singh, son of Sri Dina Nath Singh
19.Shivadeo Prasad Sinha, son of Late Ramdhari Singh
20.B.C. Roy, son of Late A.P. Roy
21.Mohan Singh, son of Late Nathuni Singh
22.R.N. Sinha, son of Late Chandrika Singh
23.Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Sri Kripal Singh
24.G.P. Keshari, son of Late Kedar Prasad Sahu
25.Brahma Shankar Prasad Singh, son of Late Sri Baidyanath Prasad
Singh
26.Akhouri Sunil Kumar Sinha, son of Late A.R.R. Sinha
27.Rafees Ahmad Khan, son of Late Habeeb Ahmad Khan
28.Yash Pal, son of Late Chaman Lal
29.H. Singh, son of Late S.B. Singh
30.Muneshwar Gope, son of Late Udho Gope
31.R. Pandey, son of Late Bishwanath Pandey
32.Birendra Singh, son of Sri Rajeshwari Singh
33.Krishna Purbey, son of Late B.N. Purbey
34.Ramesh Kumar, son of Late Ramadhar Singh
35.K.P. Mandal, son of Late S.L.P. Mandal
36.Awadhesh Prasad Singh, son of Late R.T.I. Singh
37.Bijay Kumar Singh, son of Kishori Prasad Singh
38.K. Thakur, son of Late Jagdish Thakur
39.D.R. Chauhan, son of Late Faguni Ram Chauhan
40.Lalit Kumar Singh, son of Sri Bindeshwar Singh
41.Ranjit Kumar Goswami, son of Sri Buoy Kumar Goswami
42.Dewendra Prasad Kandhway, son of Late Keshaw Ram
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Steel Authority of India Limited, a Company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 through its Chairman, having its
registered office at ISPAT BHAWAN, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
and one of its units as Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro Steel City,
District:- Bokaro (Jharkhand).
2
2. Bokaro Steel Plant, a unit of M/S Steel Authority of India Limited,
Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, Town and
District- Bokaro through its Chief Executive Officer having office
at P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, Town and District- Bokaro
3. The Executive Director (P & A), SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, having
office at ISPAT BHAWAN, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City,
Town- Bokaro Steel City and District- Bokaro, State- Jharkhand
4. The General Manager (Town Administration), SAIL, Bokaro Steel
Plant, having office at ISPAT BHAWAN, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro
Steel City, Town- Bokaro Steel City and District- Bokaro, State-
Jharkhand
5. The Manager, Lease Section (Town Administration), SAIL,
Bokaro Steel Plant, having office at Nagar Sewa Bhawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, Town- Bokaro Steel City and District-
Bokaro, State - Jharkhand
6. The Junior Manager, Lease Section (Town Administration), SAIL,
Bokaro Steel Plant, having office at Nagar Sewa Bhawan, P.O. &
P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, Town- Bokaro Steel City and District-
Bokaro, State - Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate
---
11/15.03.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"I. For a direction commanding upon the respondents to come out with a concrete, fair, uniform and reasonable scheme for regularization of additional/extra construction in the lease hold houses of respondent no.-2 so as to apply it uniformly with respect to all the lessees of respondent no.- 2 strictly in accordance with law giving equal opportunities to all concerned and more particularly in accordance with the terms and conditions as stipulated in SAIL SCHEME FOR LEASING OF HOUSES TO EMPLOYEES, 2001 which forms part of agreement to lease of the petitioners and similarly situated persons.
II. To direct the respondents to clarify the permissible area of additional /extra construction in terms of clause 8.2 of the SAIL SCHEME FOR LEASING OF HOUSES TO EMPLOYEES, 2001 as because of not providing the actual additional/ extra permissible area to the lessees in clause 8.2 of the SAIL SCHEME FOR LEASING OF HOUSES TO EMPLOYEES, 2001, the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are deprived of their legitimate expectations.
III. To direct the respondents not to harass the petitioners and other lessees during the pendency of this writ petition merely in the name of one or the other orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in different public interest litigations in as much as the petitioners are the original lessees of respondent no.- 2 and they have made some 3 additional extra/constructions within the permissible limits in their premises."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed representation before the Chief Executive Officer, SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City for regularization of additional structure, but no order was passed which became a cause of action to move the present writ petition. He submits that it would be sufficient if the respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the grievance/claim of the petitioners within a stipulated time-frame. He also submits that similarly situated persons as that of the petitioners are being extended the relief in terms of the scheme and therefore, appropriate direction in that connection be also passed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that so far as direction to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law is concerned, he has no objection. He also submits that if any other similarly situated person as that of the petitioners is being granted any relief by the respondents, there is no reason to discriminate against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case indicating that the petitioners did not apply for regularization within the stipulated time - frame as per the scheme, but at the same time, if claim of other persons is being considered, the claim of the petitioners can also be considered.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioners to move the respondent no. 2 by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of this order. Each of the petitioners shall file their separate representation. The representation be filed latest by 12.04.2023. The respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation and the reasoned order be also communicated to the concerned petitioner(s) through speed post.
7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj