Jharkhand High Court
Virendra Pratap Singh Son Of Late ... vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 22 June, 2018
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3675 of 2004
-------
Virendra Pratap Singh son of late Jaleshwar Singh resident of
Village-Gudri Singh ka tola, P.O & P.S. Pandeypur, District-Ballia
at present residing at Plot No. 44, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro
Steel City, District Bokaro. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel, through its
Managing Director, B.S. City, Bokaro.
2.The Chief Personnel Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City, Bokaro.
3.The General Manager (G.M), Town Services, Bokaro Steel Plant,
Bokaro.
4.The Superintendent (Estate, Town Planning and Administration)
Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.
5.The Assistant Manager (Pay), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.
6.The Assistant General Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.
... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. G.M. Mishra, Advocate.
------
C.A.V on 17.05.2018 Delivered on 22/06/2018
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 27.03.2004 whereby the request of the petitioner for post V.R.S leasing out of incumbent company quarters on long term has been refused and further for a declaration that the petitioner was in authorized and legal occupation of the company quarters on the date of retirement, therefore he is entitled for permanent allotment of quarters on long term lease in terms with the Scheme 'for leasing a house to employee-2003' and further to hold and declare that withholding of amount of Rs. 2,23,788 from the post V.R.S Benefit is grossly 2 arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled for refund/adjustment of the same as against the long term lease of the quarters in question. Alternatively, prayer has been made for revocation of voluntary retirement of the petitioner and permit him to re-join the services.
2. The facts, as delineated, in the writ application, in brief is that petitioner after serving the respondents-company for a long time, opted and applied for Voluntary Retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003, which in due course was processed and after following all formalities, the same was accepted and accordingly petitioner was released vide separation order dated 31.07.2003. It has further been averred that though his length of service was up-to 2010 but due to attraction of scheme floated by the respondents-company, namely "SAIL Scheme for Permanent Leasing of House to Its Employee 2003", which was scheduled to be lapsed in September, 2003 and which was made exclusively applicable in the case of superannuation or voluntary retirement, the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement. It has further been averred that in terms of the policy, the petitioner who was in authorized occupation of one company quarters duly applied for allotment of said quarter, but, to utter surprise order dated 27.03.2004 was passed whereby the request of the petitioner for post V.R.S leasing out of incumbent company quarters on long term has been refused and hold the petitioner to be in unauthorized occupation of said quarter on the ground that the petitioner has acquired a house within 8 km distance from the Main Administration Building.
3
3. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Clause 2.1 (eligibility clause), of "SAIL Scheme for leasing of houses to employees-2003" submitted that since the petitioner was in authorized occupation of Qr. No. 12A/D/1049, which was allotted to him in the year 1995, which fact finds support from the salary slip of the petitioner wherein deduction is shown against rent, he was fully eligible to get V.R.S leasing out of incumbent company quarters on long term basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after voluntary retirement of the petitioner, while the petitioner was in possession of the said quarter, on being found proper and authorized, occupation of quarter was extended on 15.09.2003 till 31.01.2004 awaiting permanent allotment in favour of petitioner and as against which total amount of Rs. 2,56,215/- was withheld from the post VRS benefits by way of security. However, when permanent allotment was not issued, the petitioner represented before the authorities with a request to either release the withheld amount or to adjust the same as against the price of the said quarters. It has further been submitted that though thereafter Rs. 48,436/- was refunded but amount of Rs. 2,07,788/- was withheld and thereafter all of a sudden impugned order dated 27.03.2004 was passed on the ground of not vacating the quarters in spite of purchase of his own house at 44, Co-operative colony on 10.08.1990 and further on 06.08.2003 sub-letting the quartesr. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that soon after the purchase 4 of house the petitioner duly informed the same to the authority concerned vide letter dated 11.05.1991 and furthermore, the respondents never asked the petitioner to vacate the company quarters; as such he continued in occupation of the quarters with the consent of respondents, therefore it cannot be said to be unauthorized occupation. So far as Company Rules, as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit is concerned, regarding vacation of quarter after purchase/construction of own house within eight kilometer is concerned, it has been submitted that it is not mandatory rather is directory. Furthermore, the same has never been strictly followed as several similarly situated persons had been allotted with company quarters in spite of having their own house at Co-operative colony and the same has never been disputed by the respondents. Hence, as per the doctrine of non- traverse the statement made by the petitioner remained in-tact. It has further been submitted that the action of the respondents is barred by principle of estoppels and acquisance inasmuch as once they in spite of full knowledge regarding the possession of house at Co-operative colony allowed the occupation of quarters, kept on deducting the house rent and never asked to vacate the quarters; they cannot be permitted to take benefit/premium for their own default/wrong. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd, assesse Vs. Commr. Of Income Tax, Bombay City as reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 232. It has further been submitted that so far allegation of the respondents that the quarters was sub-let, it is denied and falsity of the same is 5 evident from Annexure -5 to the writ application dated 15.09.2003, by which the extension of quarters was allowed up-to January, 2004 without any demur.
5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision rendered in the case of B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors as reported in (2006) 11 SCC 548 as also in the case of Profulla Chorone Requitte and others vs. Satya Chorone Requitte as reported in (1979) 3 SCC 409.
6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents, as regards allotment of company's quarters and acquisition of plot by the petitioner has shown a tabular chart, as made in the counter affidavit, which is reproduce in herein below:
Sl. No. Date/period Details
1. 20.07.1988 Occupation of Quarter No. IC/D/1232
2. 18.08.1990 Acquisition of Plot No. 44, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro from the Co-operative Society.
3. 14.12.1995 Occupation of Quarter No. 12A/D/1049
4. 22.03.1997 Vacation of Quarter No. IC/D/1232
5. 17.11.2003 Vacation of Quarter No. 12A/D/1049
6. 14.12.1995- The period, in which, the petitioner remained 21.03.1997 in double occupation of company quarters, though, for which, no additional penalty has been charged.
7. 18.11.1990- The period of unauthorized occupation of 17.11.2003 company quarter, on the ground that in spite of purchase of plot at Co-operative Colony i.e. within 8 kilometer from the 6 Administrative Building on 18.08.1990, the petitioner did not vacate the company quarter which is against the Company's Rules. Hence, penal rent was charged from the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that when the petitioner applied for post V.R.S leasing out of incumbent company quarter on long term basis and deposited money on 6.08.2003, physical verification of the quarters was done by the Town Administrative Department, whereupon it was found that the said quarters was sub-let, which was in gross violation of the terms and conditions of allotment of quarter and company Rules. Furthermore, since the petitioner had constructed/purchased a house within 8 km from the Main Administrative Building and thereafter failure on his part to vacate the company quarter, within three months as per company's Rule made him liable to pay penal rent. For the reasons aforesaid, since the petitioner was not entitled to retain the company's quarters and further he had sub- let the quarter, the question of leasing out of the company's quarter, which was in his unauthorized possession, did not arise. So far acceptance of earnest money for lease of company quarter is concerned, the same was accepted only on the assumption that the petitioner was in lawful possession of the quarters and further extension/retention of quarter no. 1049/12A was done in ignorance of the fact that the petitioner had acquired a house at Co-operative colony. It has further been submitted that claim of the petitioner that some other employees of the company who are in 7 occupation of company's quarter in spite of acquisition/purchase of house within 8 km of Main Administrative Building cannot justify the claim of the petitioner. Referring to clause 2.1 of the circular dated 1st July, 2003, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that only those employee, who are in authorized occupation of company's quarter are eligible for being considered for leasing of the company's quarter, as per scheme. Furthermore, as per Clause 5.3 of the Brochure, which deals with eligibility criteria, "unauthorized occupants will not be eligible to apply under this scheme". Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that retaining the quarter beyond three months' period form the date of acquisition of plot in Co-operative colony and further retaining two quarters unauthorizedly at the same time, in view of inbuilt provision for recovery of penal rent, no fresh notice was required to serve upon the petitioner, therefore, there is no infraction of principles of natural justice. Hence, the charging of penal rent for unauthorized occupation and refusal of request of the petitioner for post V.R.S leasing out of incumbent company quarters on long term basis needs no interference by this Court.
8. Before adverting to the merit of the case or before deciding the issue as to whether the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of company quarter, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant circulars/rules of the company to adjudicate the matter efficaciously.
"Circular Dated 18 July, 1985 Clause 6.2 and 6.3 of the House Building Advance Rules:8
6.2 Employee will be required to vacate the company accommodation/Company leased accommodation as the case may be, in the following eventualities:-
(a)Employee constructing/acquiring house in the Company's townships or within the municipal limits of the town/city of his posting with financial assistance form the Company; or
(b)Employees or any of their deponents constructing/acquiring houses even out of their resources, in the Company's townships or within the municipal limits of the town/city of their posting, provided such houses are built on land allotted by the Company or the land is made available through the aegis of the Company.
6.3 The Company accommodation/company leased accommodation as the case may be, shall be vacated by the employee within three months after the construction of his own house is completed or possession of the house/flat is taken away."
XXX XXX XXX Further, in the line with the existing policy the employees who are habitants of villages/areas falling within 8 Kms radius taking BSL Admn. Building as the Centre may not be given accommodation in Company's quarters, kit has been decided that besides the aforesaid eventualities, employees constructing/acquiring houses within 8 KMs radius form BSL Admn. Building either in their own name or in the name of any of their dependents with or without any assistant from the company shall also have to vacate Company accommodation wherever allowed, within three months of such construction/acquisition. Defaulters will render themselves liable for appropriate disciplinary action."
"Circular Dated: July 01, 2003 SAIL Scheme for leasing of houses to employees-2003 9 It has been decided to launch the 1st phase of implementation of 'SAIL Scheme for leasing of houses to employees-2003' with effect from July 01, 2003. The company's houses/flats will be leased out to its employees, who are superannuating or opting for VR/ex- employees and spouses/legal heirs of deceased employees on 'as is where is basis'. The salient features of the scheme are given below:
1.0 Objective 1.1 To enable employees/ex-employees and spouses/legal heirs of deceased employees to acquire Company's house/flats on long term lease basis.
1.2 To gainfully utilize assets created by the Company. 2.0 Eligibility 2.1 The employees who are superannuating or opting for VR/ex-employees and spouses/legal heirs of deceased employees in authorized occupation of the company's allotted houses shall be eligible to apply under the scheme. Other details are available in the Brochure.
XXXX XXXX XXXX."
9. On plain reading of Clause 6.2 and 6.3 of the House Building Advance Rules, it appears that the petitioner was required to vacate the Company accommodation within three months after the construction of his own house at Co-operative Building, which is within 8 KMs from the Main Administrative Building. Furthermore, on physical verification of the quarter by the Town Administrative Department, it was found that the said quarter was sub-let by the petitioner; which speaks that the petitioner was not in occupation of the said quarter at that time. Placing on record the salary slip to prove that monthly rent was deducted and electricity charges were paid by the petitioner does not sufficiently prove that he was in 10 authorized possession of the quarters in a situation where the authority found the quarter was sub-let. Furthermore, on admittance by the respondents-authorities that acceptance of earnest money for lease of company quarter was only on the assumption that the petitioner was in lawful possession of the quarter, however lateron on verification it was found to be sub-let, and further extension/retention of quarter no. 1049/12A was done in ignorance of the fact that the petitioner had acquired a house at Co-operative colony; it does not give any indefeasible right of the petitioner to entitle him to get benefit of post V.R.S leasing out of incumbent company quarter on long term basis. Furthermore, by lapse of such long span of time, the very purpose of getting/leasing out of quarter in question has also frustrated.
10. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner that some other employees who are in occupation of the company's quarter in spite of the fact that they have houses at Co-operative colony i.e. within 8 KMs of Main Admn. Building does not accrue any right in favour of petitioner to claim the allotment of the house under the aforesaid scheme. Hence, this Court finds no reason to issue writ of mandamus to issue any direction to lease out quarter in question or gave declaration that the petitioner was in authorized occupation of said quarter.
11. From the pleadings available on record, in particular two vacation report of quarters at Annexure K and L of the second supplementary counter affidavit dated 27.7.2012, it appears for certain period the petitioner was in double occupation of quarters, for which till date as per pleadings available on record no penal 11 rent has been deducted, however, in the said supplementary counter affidavit, a statement has been made that penal rent for the period December, 1995 to 1997 had to be deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner at the time of final settlement. Since, the petitioner has neither raised this issue nor there is any chit of paper before this Court any concrete decision has been taken by the authority till date, hence, this Court abstains from making any observation on this issue.
12. Be that at it may be, admittedly the petitioner purchased/acquired a plot at Co-operative colony on 18.08.1990 and information to that effect was given by him vide letter dated 11.05.1991. As per rules/circular of the Company, he was supposed to vacate the quarter, but he did not. But, the question arises what prevented the respondents-authorities to get the petitioner evicted from the quarters since after giving information of purchase of plot and they slept over for more than a decade and even went on deducting house rent from the salary of the petitioner and all of a sudden woke up only after when the matter of post V.R.S leasing out came to their office. Therefore, penalty after voluntary retirement and lapse of long span of time and further in view of the fact that averments to the effect that some other employees who are in occupation of company quarter have plots at same Co-operative colony has not been flatly denied by the respondents, such recovery is violative of principles of natural justice and is not tenable in law. Hence, the order or refund of HRA, as made in impugned order, is liable to be set aside. 12
13. In a logical sequiter to the aforesaid facts and reasons and discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 27.03.2004 is modified only to the extent that petitioner would not be liable to refund the HRA, as ordered in impugned order.
14. With the aforesaid modification in impugned order, the writ application stands disposed of.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-