[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Suresh Prasad Keshri @ Suresh Pd. Keshri vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 16 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

2026:JHHC:4309-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 83 of 2026
With
W.P. (S) No. 20 of 2026
Suresh Prasad Keshri @ Suresh Pd. Keshri, S/o Late Chunchun
Prasad Keshri, R/o Quarter No. 433, Sector-3/E, Bokaro Steel City,
P.O. & P.S.-B.S. City, District-Bokaro
..... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd., through its Director In-Charge, Bokaro
Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
2. The General Manager, Personnel Department, Steel Authority of
India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
3. The General Manager, Finance & Accounts Department, Steel
Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro
4. The General Manager, Town Administration Department, Steel
Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro
5. The Estate Officer, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant,
Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
..... Respondents
-----

CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For Appellant/Petitioner: Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate

-----

05/16.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner as well as Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Mr. Amitabh

Prasad and Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the respondent-

SAIL in the present appeal and the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the present appeal and

the writ petition can be disposed of by a common order.

3. The present writ petition concerns inter-alia the eviction of the

petitioner from the service quarter post his retirement. The

petitioner contended that he could not be evicted until his gratuity

was paid in full to him.

2026:JHHC:4309-DB

4. The learned Single Judge vide interim order dated 08.01.2026,

rejected the petitioner's said contention and directed his eviction

within 48 hours.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted the present L.P.A. before this

Division Bench.

6. In the present L.P.A., the appellant contended that he would

vacate the service quarter latest by 14.02.2026 and the

respondent-SAIL might be directed to pay the amount of gratuity to

the appellant together with interest so that he could make

alternative arrangement.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-SAIL contends that the issue of

over staying in service quarter and the alleged non-payment of the

amount of gratuity cannot be interlinked. However, without

prejudice, learned counsel for the respondent-SAIL submits that

the amount of gratuity will be paid to the appellant as soon as he

vacates the service quarter.

8. On 09.01.2026, while granting interim relief to the appellant, we

directed that even the present writ petition be heard along with the

present L.P.A. The contents of our order dated 09.01.2026 are

transcribed below for the convenience of reference:

"1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondents are liable to pay gratuity amount of approximately Rs.15,11,492/- to the appellant along with interest @ 10% per annum from 31.01.2012 till the date of payment.

3. On instructions, he states that whatever rents he was required to pay in terms of the Annexure-3 (page-24), the appellant is ready and willing to pay. He says that this amount can be deducted from the gratuity amount payable to the appellant.

2026:JHHC:4309-DB

4. The learned counsel for the respondents seeks time up to 13th of January, 2026 to obtain instructions.

5. Accordingly, we post this matter on 13th January, 2026.

6. Till the next date, the appellant should not be evicted from the suit premises. Further, the appellant should clear the office objections which will include stamp reporting etc.

7. List the Writ Petition No.20 of 2026 along with this L.P.A. on 13th January, 2026.

8. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent agrees to forthwith communicate this order to the respondents."

9. On 14.01.2026, upon hearing the parties and crystalising the

amount of gratuity etc. receivable by the petitioner, we made the

following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the Court, now says that the petitioner will vacate the premises latest by 14th of February,2026.

3. This statement, which is made on instructions, is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

4. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will, in the course of the day, file a written undertaking that he will vacate the premises, latest by 14th of February, 2026 and hand over the keys to the General Manager, Town Administration, Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro.

5. Learned counsel for the Steel Authority of India Limited submits that according to their calculation, the amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs. 13,09,962.17. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, to arrive at this figure, the respondents have levied interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the penal

2026:JHHC:4309-DB

rent. He submits that this could neither be proper nor fair.

6. This matter was argued for some time yesterday. The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 15.12.2020 passed in S.L.A.(C) No. 11025 of 2020 against this Court's final judgement and order dated 13.02.2020 in L.P.A. No. 19 of 2016. This Court, in somewhat similar circumstances, had directed this very respondent, SAIL, to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount equivalent to gratuity payable to the employee. At the same time, since the employee was occupying the premises beyond the prescribed period, the respondent was permitted to charge penal rent, which could then be adjusted against the dues payable, including gratuity amount.

7. Neither the order of this Court nor the above order refers to charging of interest on penal rent. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case as well, we do not think that charging interest on penal rent would be just and fair. This is more so because the amount now determined by excluding the interest on penal rent, which comes to Rs. 16,69,111.46, is to be paid to the petitioner only after he vacates the said premises.

8. Accordingly, we direct the respondents, i.e. Steel Authority of India Limited, to deposit before the learned Registrar General of this Court the amount of Rs. 16,69,111.46, latest by 10th February, 2026, by way of a demand draft drawn in the name of the petitioner herein. Necessary intimation to this effect may also be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner, along with the photocopy of the demand draft.

9. We clarify that normally, eviction orders made by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act are to be challenged by instituting an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, in this case, the learned Single Judge, having regard to the peculiar factual position, entertained the petition. Before this Court, since the settlement was being worked out, under which the petitioner agreed to vacate the said

2026:JHHC:4309-DB

premises, upon assurance that he would be paid his dues, we did not go into the issue of an alternate remedy or other issues that could have arisen in this matter. We clarify this because we do not wish this order to be treated as a precedent in future cases.

10. We list this matter on the 16th of February, 2026, for reporting compliance.

11. The interim order granted by us on 09.01.2026 will operate till the next date.

12. The calculation chart, both with and without interest, on the penal rent tendered by Mr Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-SAIL, is kept on record."

10. Since we had listed these matters on 16.02.2026 i.e., today for

reporting compliance, the matter has come up on the board.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the

appellant/petitioner has now vacated the service quarter and has

handed over its peaceful possession to the respondent-SAIL.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-SAIL accepts the above fact

and submits that the respondent-SAIL has no further grievance

against the appellant/petitioner.

13. The above submissions are accepted.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent-SAIL submits that the SAIL has

already deposited an amount of Rs. 16,69,111.46/- before the

Registrar General of this Court, without prejudice to its rights and