PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) PETITIONER 'sfather was in service of the respondent No. 1 le. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. He retired as Senior Scurity Inspector on 28th February, 1991. Petitioner 'sson was also granted appointment in Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro as T.O.T. on 18th of September, 1990 i.e. prior to the retirement of petitioner No. 1. Since petitioner No. 2 was residing in the same house, which was allotted to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 1 - Company, petitioner No. 1 made a request for allotment of the quarter under his occupation in the name of petitioner No. 2 vide his application dated 28th January, 1991. Prayer of the petitioner was refused. However, petitioners remained in occupation of the quarter No. 3 -A/91 D Type. The respondent No. 1 Company initiated eviction proceedings under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupancy) Act, 1971 against the petitioner No. 1. The Estate Officer ordered the eviction. The order of eviction came to be challenged before the appellate forum and in Civil Revision before the High Court. However, petitioner No. 1 remained unsuccessful before all forums and the order of eviction was finally upheld. Consequently petitioner No. 1 was evicted from the quarter on 10th August, 2002. Claim of the petitioner No. 1 is the non -payment of the retrial benefits. On unauthorized occupation of the premises, the Eviction authority also directed for payment of damages for the illegal occupation of the house, which was assessed at 30% of the cost of the property and interest @16 per cent till the final payment.
(2.) THE Revisional Court while upholding the order of eviction remitted the matter relating to damages back to the appellate authority for reassessment of the quantum of damages as ordered by the Eviction authority. The matter is under consideration with the appellate authority. In the meanwhile, some retrial benefits have been paid to the petitioner. Though the respondents have stated that the claim of damages recoverable from the petitioner is much more than the amount payable to him, the fact remains that damages are yet to be assessed. Therefore, the payment of entire retiral benefits will depend upon the assessment of the damages by the appellate authority and subject to any remedy that may be available to the petitioner in this regard. For the time being, it is only observed that the balance retiral benefits shall be released to the petitioner after the assessment of the damages and adjustment of the amount from the amount due to the petitioner on account of retiral benefits within a period of four weeks from the date, the damages are assessed. As far the other prayer of the petitioner No. 2 for payment of the House Rent Allowance is concerned, it is not denied by the respondents that H.R.A. has not been paid to the petitioner No. 2 from the date of his joining of service on 18th September, 1992. Since recovery is being made from the petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2, who has a different identity and separate employment in the respondent -Company cannot be denied the House Rent Allowance. Respondents have taken a categorical stand that one quarter was allotted to the petitioner No. 2 in the year 1992 and thereafter in the year 2002. However, he did not occupy the same for considerable period. It was only in the year 2005 that petitioner No. 2 has came in occupation of the quarter. Admittedly prior to the date of occupation the quarter remained in possession of the respondent -company, having not been occupied by the petitioner No. 2. There was litigation between the parties for a considerable time, which appears to have prevented the petitioner No. 2 from occupation of the quarter allotted.
(3.) IN view of the above, circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent -company to pay H.R.A. payable to the petitioner No. 2 up to the period, he did not occupy the quarter. However, H.R.A. shall not be payable from the date, he came in possession of the said quarter. Let the amount be assessed by the respondent -company and paid to the petitioner No. 2.;