JAI GOVIND TIWARI Vs. BOKARO STEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by the Estate Officer, Bokaro (Respondent No. 5) under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in case No. A/E 180 of 2005 directing the Petitioner to vacate the quarter No. 3C/E/164 B.S. City by 31.7.2010, pursuant to the order dated 6.4.2006 passed in the said case, Petitioner also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 18.8.2009 in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 2007 passed by the Learned District Judge, Bokaro.

(2.) Mr. R. N. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner took V.R.S. w.e.f. 31.8.2003 and then under the scheme for long term lease, he applied for allotment of the quarter under his occupation, on 5.9.2003. He also applied for adjustment of earnest money from his retiral dues. Accordingly, the gratuity was withheld, but without considering the Petitioner's application for grant of long term lease, he has been directed to vacate the quarter in question.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the Respondent-company submitted that Petitioner applied for allotment of the quarter in question and requested for adjustment of his earnest money from retiral dues, but thereafter he did not take interest in the allotment of the quarter and did not complete the formalities in that regard. This will be clear from his letter dated 24.9.2003 by which he requested for allowing him to retain the quarter for six months against his gratuity amount. He further requested for extension of time against the gratuity amount. Accordingly, he was allowed to retain the quarter for about one year on payment of all the charges as per the company rules, but thereafter, as he did not vacate the same, the said eviction case was filed. He further submitted that despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity, Petitioner avoided to appear in the said case. On considering the evidences and the other materials placed on the record by the Respondent-company, the order of eviction was rightly passed. The Petitioner filed the said appeal against the said order, but even in the appeal, he did not choose to appear. However, on considering the materials on record, the appeal was dismissed. Thus he submitted that Petitioner is liable to vacate the quarter and Respondents are entitled to realise all the charges against the quarter from the gratuity of the Petitioner and if it is insufficient, by other legal means also.