ABHIMANYU MOHANTY Vs. ROURKELA STEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Ex -employee of Rourkela Steel Plant has approached the portals of this Court challenging the order dated 28.12.99 issued by the Steel Authority turning down the request for retaining the quarters under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as well as initiation of the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Senior Stores Keeper in the Fertilizer Plant of Rourkela Steel Plant. He availed the Scheme introduced by the opp. parties for voluntary retirement and applied for the same. His request found assent of the opp. parties and he was permitted to retire voluntarily from service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 (in short VR Scheme, 1999). Though there are several allegations and counter allegations, the present dispute is confined only to the question of occupation of the quarters which was allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to occupy the quarters for 22 months after his application for voluntary retirement is acceded to.

(2.) ON receiving the Rule, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opp. parties. Apart from repudiating the averments made in the writ application, it is alleged by the authorities that the son of the petitioner has encroached a portion of the land belonging to the opp. party -Company and that is one of the grounds in not permitting the petitioner to occupy the quarters. A rejoinder affidavit is also filed by the petitioner controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. For effective adjudication of the inter sedispute, the provisions stipulated for allotment of quarters to Ex -servicemen under the V. R. Scheme, 1999 are to be looked into. Clause -2 of the aforesaid Scheme reads as follows :

(3.) LAW is well settled that for an act of commission or omission of a son, the father cannot be penalised. It is open for the authorities to proceed against the son of the petitioner if he has acted contrary to law and law will take its own course. Admittedly, the petitioner is an Ex -employee and he was permitted to avail retirement under the V.R. Scheme, 1999. The rights of the petitioner are circumscribed under the provisions of the aforesaid Scheme, and the same cannot be curtailed for any reason. Clause -2.1 of the Scheme quoted supra clearly reveals that an employee availing voluntary retirement shall occupy the quarters on Licence basis for a period of 22 months only. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30.9.99 and the period of 22 months shall expire in July, 2001. Thus, petitioner's possession is protected by the aforesaid clause and I have no hesitation to hold that initiation of a proceeding under the Public Premises Eviction Act before the period of Licence is expired, is unjust and illegal.