Jharkhand High Court
Laxmi Karmkar vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & ... on 1 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 6706 of 2012
........
Laxmi Karmkar .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent/SAIL : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate.
........
04/01.12.2021.
After some argument, it appears to this Court that whatever
proceeding has been initiated by the SAIL against the Renuka
Karmkar, the petitioner has never been noticed in those proceeding,
rather as per the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.
48/2004, the competent court of law has held that Laxmi Karmkar is
declared as legally married wife of deceased Gopal Karmkar and
therefore, she is entitled to received all the benefits of deceased
Gopal Karmkar from the Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. This order has
attained finality as no appeal has been preferred nor the same has
been set aside by any competent court.
Further, it appears from the record that before death, the son of
the petitioner Sandip Karmakar was allotted Quarter No. IV
E/E/3023 under the "SAIL Scheme for Leasing of Houses to
Employees, 2001" and he had deposited Rs. 8,000/- as earnest
money and after his death, the said quarter was allotted to her
husband, Gopal Karmkar, who has earlier resigned from services on
medical grounds and Quarter was allotted vide Allotment Order
TA/Lease/2001/465 A dated 08.12.2001, advising him to deposit Rs.
1,17,000/-(after adjusting the Earnest Money of Rs. 8,000/-) towards
premium before 31.12.2001. Vide Letter No. TA/Lease/2001/465 B
dated 08.12.2001, the husband of the petitioner was advised to pay
annual lease rent and other charges amounting to Rs. 6742/- by
31.12.2001, but unfortunately husband of the petitioner died on
13.12.2001 at Bokaro General Hospital. However, the entire amount
has been subsequently paid vide Cash Order Nos. 760515 dated
25.02.2002 and 760514 dated 25.02.2002 of Punjab National Bank
to the tune of Rs. 1,17,000/- towards premium and Rs. 6,742/-
towards annual lease rent, even though the lease hold property i.e.
Quarter No. IVE/E/3023 has not been allotted in the name of
petitioner, Laxmi Karmkar under "SAIL Scheme for Leasing of
Houses to Employees, 2001".
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari has
submitted that after receipt of payment on 25.02.2002, if any
litigation has arisen because of intervention of third party, Renuka
Karmkar, the SAIL is justified in not allotting the house in the name
of rightful claimant Laxmi Karmkar, but after decision of Title Suit
No. 48/2004, whereby it has been held that Laxmi Karmkar is
declared as legally married wife of deceased Gopal Karmkar, she is
entitled to receive all the benefits of the deceased Gopal Karmkar
from Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro and the action of the respondent
authorities in not allotting the house in the name of the Laxmi
Karmkar, though entire money has been taken by the Bokaro Steel
Plant Limited, is not justified.
Learned counsel for the respondent/SAIL, Mr. Vijay Kant
Dubey has submitted that earlier Renuka Karmkar, who claimed
herself to be wife of Gopal Karmkar, came before this Court in W.P.
(C) No. 3987 of 2010, which has been dismissed affirming the order
of authority - Estate Officer as well as appellate authority and
direction was given to vacate the quarter and make representation for
refund the amount, as such the house cannot be allotted to the
present petitioner, Laxmi Karmkar.
Be that as it may, W.P.(C) No. 3987/2010 is not concerned
with Laxmi Karmkar either before the Estate Authority or before the
Appellate Authority or before this Court, as the finding given by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3987/2010 is with
respect to Renuka Karmkar and the order of the same will not
prejudice the interest of Laxmi Karmkar, as she is entitled for all the
benefits, being the legally married wife of Gopal Karmkar and the
entire amount has been deposited.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, SAIL is directed to look
into such matters sympathetically, where the widow of a deceased
employee, who lost her son also, even after paying entire dues under
the Scheme i.e. SAIL Scheme for Leasing of Houses to Employees,
2001, is moving from pillar to post and to this Court since 2012.
Let respondent-SAIL shall file counter-affidavit within a
period of two weeks.
Put up this case after two weeks.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
