SUNITA DEVI Vs. BOKARO STEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The original petitioner, who was employee of Bokaro Steel Plant, a Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, has been substituted by his legal heirs upon his death on 7th October 2011. He is said to have retired on 31st January 2009.

(2.) He had approached this Court in the present writ application with the grievance that an amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs was shown outstanding against him in the final settlement statement issued in January 2009 vide Annexure-1 upon retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner had alleged that against his application for New House Building Loan in the year 1997, an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- was sanctioned to him vide allotment letter dated 11th April 1997 for construction of a new house. He was paid two installments of Rs. 57,000/and Rs. 76,000/- totalling Rs. 1,33,000/- on 12th August 1997 and 18th December 1997 respectively. The petitioner could not complete the construction of his house and informed the authorities as such. Therefore, the remaining third installment against the sanctioned amount of loan was not issued. Thereafter, the respondent authorities started recovery of housing building advance from the month of February 1999 @ Rs. 1120/- per month towards principal amount and Rs. 330/- towards interest by deducting the same from his salary every month. The last installment was deducted in October 2008. Total amount recovered from the petitioner till October 2008 amounted to Rs. 2,19,991/-, as per statement of repayment contained at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the meantime, just before his retirement, he was issued a charge sheet on 24th October 2008 for having not utilized the amount of construction of the house and having contravened the undertaking given by him before withdrawal of the advance. The said charge was replied to by the petitioner and he was imposed with the punishment of censure passed on 13/16th December 2008 vide Annexure-4 issued by the respondent DGM, Bokaro Steel Plant.

(3.) In the aforesaid background, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the respondents after making regular deductions per month from the salary of the petitioner, realized the amount along with interest totalling Rs. 2,19,991/- by October 2008 against the loan advance of Rs. 1,33,000/- and that he has also been censured for such charges, the final settlement statement showing outstanding of Rs. 6.00 lakhs against the new house building loan, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is also submitted that no notice has been issued to the petitioner or his legal heirs before such an amount has been adjusted from his total post retirement dues totalling Rs. 8.73 lakhs. It is submitted that the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 6.00 lakhs shown against the petitioner has been calculated on the basis of imaginary rate of interest. Even the sum of Rs. 2,19,991/- which was already recovered, has also not been adjusted. Therefore, the impugned recovery is wholly unsustainable in law.