AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N. Patel, J.
 I.A. No. 8713 of 2017
Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 75 days in preferring
this Letters Patent Appeal.
Having heard counsels for both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph No.s 3 to 8, it appears
that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.
In view of these facts, we hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8713 of 2017 is allowed and
disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 562 of 2017
This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited against the judgment and order dated 1st
August, 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5989 of 2012, whereby the petition preferred by Respondent No. 1 (Original Petitioner) was allowed by the
learned Single Judge.
Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Respondent No. 1 is an Eye
Specialist. He was serving the appellant Bharat Coking Coal Limited and he was given a bungalow in the city of Dhanbad by the said appellant.
He took voluntary retirement on 30th March, 2009, but, continued in occupation of the bungalow. This court passed an order on 9th January, 2018 to
put all his belongings on road. By this drastic order, he was compelled to vacate the bungalow. This is the attitude of this Eye Specialist. It appears
that this Eye Specialist has set his eyes upon the bungalow in question.
A detailed calculation is given at Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit filed by this appellant with respect to rent claimed by this appellant for
post-retirement occupation of the bunglow. It comes to Rs.6,01,708.60/- in total and this amount has been set off against the retirement dues.
Lot of greivances has been ventilated by the appellant against this Eye Specialist, who has not vacated the bungalow after he has taken voluntary
retirement till the compelling order was passed by this Court in the month of January, 2018.
Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in Baleshwar Singh vs.The Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in (2007) 4
JCR Page 1.
 Looking to the peculiar facts of the present case that even after taking voluntary retirement in March, 2009, Respondent No.1 did not vacate the
bungalow till a compelling order is passed by this Court in January, 2018, it appears that this fact itself makes this case different from the case cited by
the counsel for the appellant and hence, ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
We, therefore, quash and set aside the order dated 1st August, 2017 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5989 of 2012, so far as the
direction given to make payment of Leave Encashment is concerned, mainly for the reason that no Leave Encashment can be paid to an employee,
who, after retirement, continues in unauthorised occupation of his official quarters.
If the aforesaid amount, mentioned in the Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit, is disputed, Respondent No.1 is at liberty to challenge the
same before a competent Civil Court under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If there is any dispute regarding setting off this amount from
the retiral dues, then also remedy is available with Respondent No. 1 to approach the competent authority.
In view of the aforesaid observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.