Krishna Kumar Singh & Ors vs Bokaro Steel Plant Through Chief ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3575 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                         W.P.(S). No. 2503 of 2018


          Krishna Kumar Singh & Ors.                              ...       ...       ...          Petitioners

                                                         Versus
          Bokaro Steel Plant through Chief Executive Officer, & Ors.
                                                                  ...       ...     ....      Respondents
                                                  ------

            CORAM:            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
                              (Through: Video Conferencing)
                                                  ------
            For Petitioners             : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
            For Respondents             : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                        : Mr. V. K. Dubey, Advocate
                                             ----------
                                             -----------
08/ 23.09.2021            Heard the parties.

By way of instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondent to pay the retained amount of gratuity to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of retention of the amount till the date of actual payment after charging normal rent @ Rs.88/- per month for the period during which the petitioners remained in occupation of the quarter after their superannuation. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2017).

The said contention of Mr. Manoj Tandon is vehemently opposed by Mr. Indrajit Sinha and he places heavy reliance on the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Raghbendra Singh & Ors., wherein it is observed thus:-

2.... if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. V. U. Warrier -(2005) 5 SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No.4740 of 2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case.

Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, this Court directs the respondents to come with the breakup chart as what amount has been paid to the petitioners and for what amount they were entitled for. Learned counsel should also bring on record the specific dates on which the petitioners

superannuated and for how long they retained the quarter illegally. Respondents are also directed to come with the relevant rules pertaining to charges/penal rent to be levied against retention of the quarter by an employee after retirement.

Put up this case after two weeks.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Rohit/-