Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (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). (i) to pay the Gratuity amount of Rs. 2,67,231/ - with 12% interest with effect from 01st July 2003 and adjust the Gratuity amount and interest therein on the sale of the quarter No. 2274 D -type 4G situated in B.S.L. City, Bokaro. (ii) to quash the order contained in Memo No. 7562 dated 03rd/12th September 2009 and 23rd September 2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to vacate the quarter on or before 15th September 2009 earlier allotted to him since 1991. Counsel for the petitioner however, during the course of argument, has straightaway made a submission that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in WPS No. 4181/2007 for a direction upon the respondents to consider his representation dated 20th June 2007 filed by the petitioner and further to pay the Gratuity amount as aforesaid. It is submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 01st October 2009 (Annexure -8) has not yet been disposed of by the respondents in spite of the direction passed in the judgment dated 20th May 2009. Respondents should therefore decide the petitioner' representation in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent cannot withhold any gratuity which is a statutory right. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.V. Kapoor vs. Union of India and others [ : 1990 LAB. I.C. 1522 and para -7 thereof. It is submitted that the gratuity and pension of the employee is a statutory right and withholding/withdrawal of such gratuity can be made only on the basis of a grave misconduct and irregularity. The petitioner has not been charged with any grave misconduct or irregularity. Therefore, retention of the gratuity is bad. Further, by referring to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on 10th March 2014, it has been submitted that in the calculation of penal rent also, a different yardstick has been adopted and there is no uniformity in the same vis -à -vis other similarly situated employees. Counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the respondents may be directed to take a decision on his representation and also release the gratuity amount withheld till date. By referring to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner submits that the undertaking furnished by the petitioner was only till 31st December 2003 itself and the respondent should have returned the gratuity amount thereafter.
(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.;