Jharkhand High Court
Shanti Das vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5810 of 2011
------
Shanti Das .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Steel, through Secretary, Ministry of Steel,
Government of India, New Delhi
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Government of India, New Delhi
3. Steel Authority of India Ltd. through its Chairman, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
4. The Chairman, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Lodi Road, New Delhi
5. The Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd,
having its office at Administrative Building, P.O., P.S., Sub Division &
District Bokaro
6. The Executive Officer, Personnel, Bokaro Steel Plant, having its office at
Administrative Building, P.O., P.S., Sub Division & District Bokaro
7. The Town Administrator, Town Administrative Building, Sector I, P.O. &
P.S. Sector I, District Bokaro
8. The Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant office at Administrative Building,
P.O., P.S., Sub Division & District Bokaro
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC
For the SAIL : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Advocate
------
Order No.07 / Dated : 19.02.2024
1. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee of SAIL, Bokaro
Steel Plant and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 9th May, 2011 passed in
Miscellaneous Appeal No.57 of 2008 by the learned District Judge, Bokaro as
also against the judgment dated 23.07.2008 of the State Officer, Bokaro Steel
City in Case No. A/E 14/2007.
2. By the impugned judgment, the petitioner has been declared an
unauthorized occupant of Quarter No.455, Sector III D, Bokaro Steel City
since 22.11.2002 under order of eviction under Section 5 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971.
3. The husband of the petitioner Kashi Nath Das died in harness on
24.09.1998 while serving as Senior Technician-cum-Operative being
Employee No.020628.
4. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. floated a scheme for lease of house
to the employees known as 'SAIL Scheme For Leasing of House, 2001' on
specified rate. The petitioner applied for allotment of Quarter under the said
scheme on 06.10.2001 and in pursuant to the said scheme, the Quarter was
allotted on long term lease vide allotment order dated 23.10.2001 and earnest
money to the tune of Rs.16,000/- was accepted and the petitioner was advised
to deposit the balance premium amount of Rs.2,39,000/- by 21.11.2001 in
order to other miscellaneous charges. The petitioner, on 07.11.2001, submitted
a written application of request to the General Manager, Town Administration
for recovery of house lease premium for the final settlement of money of her
husband.
5. The main contention of the petitioner is without any reply to the said
letter for allotment under the long term lease scheme, on 14.05.2004, she was
directed to vacate the Quarter.
6. On 15.06.2004, for the first time, it was informed that during final
settlement, a sum of Rs.2,10,353.82 for long term lease and there was short
fall of Rs.36,466.12 and the same could not be adjusted, out of which she had
to deposit Rs.2,46,820/-. As the balance amount was not paid therefore,
eviction order was passed by learned State Officer as the same was affirmed in
appeal by the learned District Judge.
7. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that husband of
the petitioner had died on 24.09.1998, and it was fault on the part of
respondent authorities, in not computing the final settlement amount. No
intimation was given to the petitioner that after adjusting final settlement
amount, the balance of Rs.36,466.12 had to be paid by the petitioner on
15.06.2004. In the absence of any intimation to the Petitioner, widow of the
ex-employee, it was not possible for her to make final payment of the balance
amount.
8. When the petitioner finally wrote a letter on 04.06.2004 seeking reply
with regard to her proposal to adjust the amount against premium to be paid
under the long term lease vide letter dated 15.06.2004, for the first time, it was
intimated that settlement was to the tune of Rs.2,10,353.82 whereas the
petitioner was required to make a payment of the premium of Rs.2,46,820/-,
which having been not paid, the allotment was cancelled.
9. It is argued by the counsel that the finding of the learned appellate
Court is factually incorrect that there was a short fall of Rs.2,10,353.82 up to
27.11.2001. From the letter dated 15.06.2004 (Annexure-7) of Steel Authority,
it will be apparent that balance was only of Rs.36,466.12. Had this
information been given to the petitioner on time, the payments would have
been made. The respondent Company is trying to make capital out of its own
fault by first, not settling the amount, not giving any intimation regarding the
balance to be paid and then canceling the allotment letter. She is ready to pay
the balance amount with interest as per the lease scheme.
10. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent Company defends the
impugned order. It is submitted that it was the responsibility of the petitioner
to get the settlement amount calculated by the concerned Section and make the
final payment of the premium amount. The said payment was to be paid by
2001, but till date, the balance amount has not been paid.
11. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides,
it is apparent that the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of the Quarter
under the long term scheme and to that end, had made the application within
stipulated time with the requisite earnest amount. For the payment of the
premium amount, petitioner had also written to the competent authority to
adjust the premium amount against the final settlement due in favour of her
late husband, who had died in 1998. Neither the settlement was made nor the
intimation regarding balance amount to be paid, was given to the petitioner
and by letter dated 14.05.2004, the allotment was cancelled on the pretext that
the balance after adjustment of the amount, had not been paid. The letter of
cancellation of allotment is indefensible as the petitioner was not given an
opportunity to make payment of the balance amount by giving a timely
intimation regarding it.
Under the circumstance, the impugned orders of eviction passed on
that count, is set aside. The respondent Company is directed to allot the said
Quarter or similar Quarter of similar grade in favour of the petitioner, on
payment of the balance amount as the per long term lease scheme along with
the applicable interest.
The respondent no.7, within three weeks of the receipt/production of
the order, will compute the final balance amount to be paid by the Petitioner,
under the long term scheme along with interest for allotment of the said
Quarter or any other Quarter of similar grade. The payment shall be made
within another three weeks of the intimation given by respondent no.7 to the
petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed. I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
