Ratish Chandra Jha And Others vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2608 Jhar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Cont. Case (Civil) No. 44 of 2021
Ratish Chandra Jha and others          ...    ...    ...    Petitioners
                         Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others      ...      ...      ...    Opp. Parties
                        ---------

CORAM:               HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                        ---------
For the Petitioners:    Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate

For Resp. No.1/State: Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II For Resp. Nos.2-5/SAIL: Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate

---------

Oral Order 02/Dated: 29.07.2021

This Contempt application has been filed for initiating a

proceeding of contempt against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 for their

willful and deliberate disobedience and non-compliance of the order

dated 01.09.2020 passed in L.P.A. No. 709 of 2018.

From perusal of the concerned order passed by this Court, as

mentioned above, it appears that the following directions were given

by us:-

"05 / Dated : 01.09.2020 xxx xxx xxx Xxx xxx xxx In view of the conduct of the writ petitioners-appellants also, we are not persuaded to intervene in the matter as they would be required to vacate the quarter. We were also of the opinion to impose heavy cost and penal rent in view of their conduct but at the time of hearing learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that all of them are retired persons and they would face great hardship if such type of direction or order is passed. In that view of the matter, we are refraining ourselves from imposing of penal rent but as per the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors Versus Sada Nand Singh (L.P.A. No. 733 of 2018 and analogous cases) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal No. 4740

of 2017), the writ petitioners would be required to pay rent at the normal rate if they vacate the quarters within a period of four weeks from today. They will also have to pay the rent at normal rate for the unauthorised period of occupation which shall be calculated by the respondents and would be supplied to the writ petitioners along with the electricity and water charges, if payable. In case of non-compliance of the direction, i.e., if they do not vacate the quarter within a period of four weeks from today and do not pay the calculated rent at normal rate within a period of three months from the date of the same being raised then in such case they would be liable to pay penal rent fixed in accordance with law by the respondents authorities. If they do not vacate the quarters then the authorities would be at liberty to get them vacated through the process of law and recover penal rent also. However, it is made clear that the aforesaid would have no connection with the release of gratuity and payment of statutory interest upon the gratuity amount as per law."

The direction was that the writ petitioners would be required to

pay rent at the normal rate if they vacate the quarters within a period

of four weeks from the date of the order. In that condition, they will

also have to pay the rent at normal rate for the unauthorised period of

occupation which will be calculated by the respondents and would be

supplied to the writ petitioners along with the electricity and water

charges, if payable. However, if they choose not to comply the

direction of this Court to vacate the quarters within a period of four

weeks and do not pay the calculated normal rent within a period of

three months from the date of bill raised and in that situation, they will

be liable to pay panel rent fixed in accordance with law by the

respondent-authorities and in such case, the authorities would be at

liberty to get them vacated through the process of law. However, we

had made it clear that the aforesaid direction/observation would have

no connection with the release of gratuity and payment of statutory

interest upon the gratuity amount as per law.

It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that they have

vacated the quarters within a period of four weeks from the date of

passing the order as directed by this Court, still, the gratuity amount

along with statutory interest, if any, has not been paid. Thus, this is a

clear-cut violation of the direction of the Court's order as they will

require to pay the gratuity amount.

No explanation has been given for non-payment of gratuity

amount, though a copy of this petition was served upon the

respondents as early as on 21.01.2021.

Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.2 to 5, has submitted before us that the direction of

the Court, as contained in the order for non-compliance for which the

present proceeding has been initiated, is based upon the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ram Naresh Singh Vs.

Bokaro Steel Limited and others (Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2017),

but in a subsequent case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's earlier

observation and direction that in such cases penal rent would not be

required to be realized, that part has been overruled by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

However, the order might have been passed on the basis of

that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but this order has not

been assailed by any of the parties. Therefore, whatever the law

which has been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

subsequent case, whether that will give a hand to the respondents

not to comply the order in present case without challenging the same

or getting it modified, is the first question which arises to be answered

in this matter. Secondly, this Court has already said that there is no

connection between realization of rent after vacating the quarters with

payment of the gratuity amount which would be due along with

statutory interest, if any, to the writ petitioners. Meaning thereby, that

has to be paid to the writ petitioners. But, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents, is not in a position to

say that such admitted amount has been paid whereas the writ

petitioners are stating that that the same is yet to be paid even after

the order has been passed.

If that is the situation, this Court deems fit and proper to issue

notice upon respondent Nos.2 to 5 to show cause as to why a

proceeding for contempt should not be initiated against them for non-

compliance of the order dated 01.09.2020 passed in L.P.A. No. 709

of 2018.

Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel, waives notice on behalf

of respondent Nos.2 to 5.

Put up this case on 12.08.2021 at 2.15 p.m.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Manoj/R.Kr.