Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Mishra & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 5126 of 2013
........
Birendra Mishra & Others .... ..... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Petitioners : None.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate.
........
10/01.11.2021.
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners.
However, in compliance of order dated 01.10.2021, petitioners
have filed supplementary affidavit on 29.10.2021 stating therein from
para-2 to 6, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"2. That it is submitted that on 08.10.2021, the petitioner no. 1
has vacated the quarter and the receipt of the above quarter
vacation report has been given by the respondent authorities on
21.10.2021.
3. That it is submitted that as per the letter dated 25.09.2021
the net payable amount to the petitioner no. 1 by the SAIL is Rs.
8,88,990/- but the cheque dated 29.09.2021 issued by the SAIL in
the name of petitioner no. 1, reflects amount of Rs. 6,31,710/-.
4. That it is submitted that the petitioner no. 4, is under
treatment and admitted in hospital at Bombay.
5. That it is submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is out of Bokaro,
and has vacated his quarter in the month of March, 2020 during 1 st
national lockdown, but receiving has not been given by the
respondent SAIL to him quarter vacation report is at present
residing with his son at Kanpur, U.P.
6. That it is submitted that the petitioner no. 3 is out of Bokaro,
and not in contact with petitioner no. 1."
However, from perusal of the orders dated 24.09.2021,
27.09.2021 and 01.10.2021, it appears that the petitioners has assured
this Court, after removal of defects in compliance of order dated
07.09.2021 with regard to present writ petition filed on 19.08.2013, that
they are ready to vacate the quarters on the date when the amount of
gratuity and other admissible claims, if applicable, shall be paid to the
petitioners by the respondent-Management in view of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Steel Authority
of India Limited Vs. Raghbendra Singh & Others passed in
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s). 11025/2020.
Similar stand has been taken by the petitioners on 27.09.2021,
when this Court fixed time to appear before the DGM, Town and
Administration, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro on 29.09.2021 at 10:30
A.M.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken instruction on
01.10.2021 that petitioners went to the office of the respondents, but
nobody was there to attend them, which was disputed by learned
counsel for the respondents on the ground that none of the parties have
came before the respondents authority in compliance of order dated
27.09.2021.
Thereafter, this Court in terms of order dated 01.10.2021 has
granted time to the petitioners to vacate the premises and handover the
key on 27.10.2021 at 01:00 P.M. to the DGM, Town and
Administration, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, so as to assess the damage
and other charges recoverable from the petitioners.
Now, from perusal of supplementary affidavit dated 29.10.2021,
it appears that a new stand has been taken by the petitioners, wherein it
has been submitted that petitioner no. 1, Birendra Mishra (Staff
No.388034) has vacated the quarter on 08.10.2021 and receipt has been
issued by the respondent authorities on 21.10.2021. However, the
petitioner no. 1 has disputed the quantum of payment made to him vide
cheque.
So far petitioner no. 2 namely, Talkeshwar Dubey (Staff No.
056954) is concerned, it is submitted that he has vacated the quarter in
the month of March, 2020 during 1st national lockdown, but receiving
has not been given by the respondent SAIL to him with respect to
quarter vacation report and he is at present residing with his son at
Kanpur, U.P.
So far petitioner no. 3, Lakshmeshwar Pandey (Staff No.280412)
is concerned, he is out of Bokaro and not in contact with petitioner
no. 1.
So far petitioner no. 4 Krishna Kanhaiya Prasad Roy (Staff
No.362905) is concerned, he is under treatment and admitted in
hospital at Bombay.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Vijay Kant
Dubey has submitted that Birendra Mishra (petitioner no. 1) has
vacated the premises and dues has already been paid.
So far petitioner no. 5, Arjun Prasad (Staff No. 090564) is
concerned, he is in long term lease, as such, there is no dispute with
Arjun Prasad.
So far respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 are concerned, they are
misleading this Court, as they have claimed that they have appeared
before the respondent-authorities on 29.09.2021 at 10:30 A.M. as such,
the writ petition may be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 to 4 and from perusal of the supplementary affidavit
dated 29.10.2021 including the orders dated 07.09.2021, 24.09.2021,
27.09.2021 and 01.10.2021, it appears that petitioners have given
wrong assurance before this Court in a writ petition filed on
19.08.2013.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, since the conduct of the
petitioners are not clean, as such, they cannot be granted relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioner
nos. 2, 3 & 4 are hereby rejected.
So far petitioner no. 5 is concerned, his case is different from
other petitioners, as he is in long term lease with the respondent
authorities, as such, the writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioner
no. 5 is disposed of.
So far petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the writ petition is disposed
of.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner no. 1 to file an
application before the respondent-authorities for calculation so as to
satisfy, whether he has been given correct amount or not? Such
application shall be filed within a period of 30 days from today and on
such application filed by the petitioner no. 1, the respondent authorities
shall provide calculation in further 30 days period.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
