RAVI RANJAN,NARAYAN PRASAD,JJ. - (1.) The instant intra-court appeal has been filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order/judgment dated 22.06.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3675 of 2004 whereby and whereunder prayer pertaining to allotment of quarters on long term lease has been negated, however, the decision of the respondents-authorities for recovery of the amount, by way of rent for occupation of the quarters, has been set aside "with a direction to refund the House Rent Allowance, as ordered in the impugned order".
(2.) Before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned decision, it requires to refer certain factual aspects, which are necessary for reaching to the rightful conclusion of the lis: The appellant-writ petitioner had filed a writ, being W.P. (S) No. 3675 of 2004, for quashing letter bearing Ref. No. TA/A/2004- 282 dated 27.03.2004 issued under the signature of respondent no. 6 whereby the request of the petitioner for post V.R.S leasing out of incumbent company quarters on long term lease has been refused; further for direction to declare and hold that the petitioner is in authorized and legal occupation of the company's quarters on the date of retirement, hence the petitioner is entitled for permanent allotment of quarters on long term lease in terms of the scheme, namely, "SAIL Scheme for leasing of houses to employees-2003" (in short the 'Scheme, 2003') and in consequence thereof, amount of Rs. 2,23,788/-, which has been withheld in lieu of retaining the said quarters be directed to be refunded in favour of the writ petitioner with interest. The appellant-writ petitioner, who was working under the Bokaro Steel plant, has opted separation under 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003', floated vide circular no. 265 dated 25.06.2003, which was accepted and the petitioner was released vide Separation order dated 31.07.2003. The Steel Authority of India Limited through Bokaro Steel Plant has come out with a scheme, namely, "SAIL Scheme for leasing of houses to employees-2003", making a provision therein that in case of separation on voluntary retirement, the quarters belonging to the respondent-company will be leased out on the basis of long term lease and pursuant thereto, writ petitioner has made application for separation under the Scheme, 2003. According to the appellant, he although was fulfilling the conditions, as stipulated in the circular dated 31.07.2003 for having authorized occupation of the company's allotted quarters and as such in view of the provisions of the said circular, the quarters in question was to be leased out on the basis of long term lease but the claim has been rejected by the impugned order, led the appellant to file writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 3675 of 2004, which has been disposed of vide order dated 22.06.2018 by partly allowing the writ petition holding the action of the respondentcompany in withholding a sum of Rs.2,23,788/-, as illegal and in consequence thereof direction to refund the said amount has been passed while negated the claim for allotment of the quarters on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the scheme in question.
(3.) Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has argued vehemently that learned Single Judge while considering the case in favour of the appellant so far it relates to refund of the amount under HRA head, there was no reason not to pass positive direction for leasing out the said quarters in his favour on the basis of applicable circular, even though the appellant-writ petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria as provided therein.;