Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) In this application, the original writ petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. 5158 dated 3/5.7.2004, issued by respondent No. 5, whereby and whereunder, the Management has refused to consider granting long term lease of Quarter No. 2355/Sector 6 D, Bokaro Steel City and the original writ petitioner was further directed to vacate the quarter. It has further been prayed for restraining the respondents to realize penal rent from June, 2001 as also a direction upon the respondents for making payment of retrial dues to the substituted heirs of the original writ petitioner.
(2.) The original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was initially appointed as Work Assistant in the year 1967 and regularized on 26.04.1969 and finally superannuated from service on 30.11.1997. The respondent No. 1 had come up with an allotment scheme for leasing of houses to its employees known as SAIL Scheme, pursuant to which the employee had applied for quarter No. 34/III -B and deposited the security amount of Rs. 16,000/ -. The total revised premium was fixed at Rs. 2,70,000/ - and the employee was directed to pay the balance amount and complete other formalities. Since the employee was informed on 15.12.2001 that the quarter which he had applied for was purchased by the allotted person himself, the employee was advised to make an application for allotment of the quarter, which was in his possession i.e. Quarter No. 6/D/2355. The employee accordingly applied for allotment of the said quarter along with bank draft amounting to Rs. 16,000/ - and the employee was directed to make the payment of premium of Rs. 2,35,000/ -. In response to the letter of the employee, wherein a request was made for final settlement of retrial dues after adjusting Rs. 2,03,000/ - towards long term lease, the employee was informed that even after the adjustment of all the dues, there was still a shortfall of Rs. 1,95,664.00, which the employee was advised to deposit. Letter dated 3/5.7.2004 was issued to the employee, wherein it was intimated that the employee had neither deposited the balance amount nor the entire adjustment of the dues could be made from the retrial dues of the employee and in such circumstance, it was intimated that the quarter could not be considered for being granted on long term lease to the employee and he was accordingly also advised to vacate the quarter.
(3.) Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents.;