DEVENDRA KUMAR Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE writ petition was filed by the petitioner who has retired from Bokaro Steel City on 30th June 2003, seeking for the following relief(s).

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent -Bokaro Steel Plant, straightaway brings to the notice of this Court the averments made in paragraph -14 and 15 of the writ petition where the petitioner is said to have stated that the orders dated 03rd/12th September 2009 and 23rd September 2009 have been issued by the respondents which is obviously in compliance of the Court's order which is referred to at para -14 itself. He submits that annexure -6 order dated 03rd September 2009 itself shows that the pending representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected by giving specific reasons that the petitioner has been allowed to retain occupation of the quarter on an undertaking executed by him up to 30th June 2005. After lapse of the period when the petitioner did not vacate the quarter, Eviction Suit was instituted in the Estate Court, BS City for declaration of the petitioner as an unauthorized occupant and the Estate Court after due compliance of the procedure of law, has passed the judgment dated 12th May 2006 directing him to vacate the quarter within fifteen days. The petitioner has not complied with the order passed in the aforesaid judgment and had remained in unauthorized occupation. It has been further observed in the said order that the retention of the amount equivalent to gratuity was made in order to adjust the house rent, electricity charges and other incidental expenses on the basis of the petitioner's undertaking and there is no scheme under which the quarter under occupation could be leased to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order of 23rd September 2009, once again petitioner has been directed to vacate the quarter failing which process of law shall be adopted. Counsel for the respondent further relies upon the a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Limited vs. Shri Ram Naresh Singh & others [L.P.A. No. 15/2013] dated 24th January 2014. By referring to paragraphs -5, 9 and other paragraphs of the judgment, it has been submitted that the petitioner has also given an undertaking in the same format for retention of the amount equivalent to the gratuity for occupying the quarter after his retirement. It has been submitted that the learned Division Bench considered the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and categorically came to the conclusion that the retention of the amount equivalent to the gratuity, was not in the nature of punishment, rather on undertaking of the employee himself. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the plea that the gratuity amount cannot be withheld, was rejected and the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the contrary was set aside. Further reference has been made to the judgment rendered in the case of Gauri Chakraborty vs. M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors [ : 2007(4) J C R 495 (Jhr) to the same effect. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the petitioner may be directed to vacate the quarter forthwith.