AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr Krishna Prajapati, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
Mr Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, states that all respondents have been duly served, and an affidavit of service has been filed in this matter. The record also shows that all respondents have been duly served.
On 29.09.2026, after hearing Mr Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr Krishna Prajapati, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, we made the following order:-
“1.Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel for the appellants.
2.Mr. Sinha states that notices have been served upon all the respondents except 10th respondent. Mr. Sinha further states that while efforts will be made to serve respondent No.10, service upon him is not very relevant because the appellants have already paid this respondent the amounts in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Singh vs. Bokaro Steel Limited Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2017 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 30325 of 2014 even though, it is the appellants’ case that the law laid down in Ram Naresh Singh (Supra) no longer holds good given the later decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Steel Authority of India and Others vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh and Others Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 025516- 025517 of 2024 2026 INSC 263.
3.Mr. Krishna Prajapati, appears for the 1st respondent.
4.Despite service, except on behalf of the 1st respondent, there is no appearance or representation for the other respondents.
5.Since, we propose to dispose of this appeal finally at Admission stage, we post the matter on 27th of October 2026, High on Board. This is to grant the respondents an additional opportunity.
6.Since this matter is of ‘abandunt caution’, we direct that 7th respondent may be re-served informing him that the matter is now posted for final disposal at the Admission stage on 27th of October 2026.
7.Notice is waived and accepted. In addition to the usual mode of service, private/personal service is permitted.
8.Affidavit of service to be filed.”
Pursuant to the above order, the 7th respondent has also been served, and an affidavit of service has been filed by the appellants in this matter.
On behalf of the appellants, Mr Amit Kumar Mazumdar, Deputy Manager of the appellant-company, i.e., SAIL (BSL), filed the supplementary affidavit on 25.09.2026.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the above affidavit are relevant, and therefore, the same are transcribed below for the convenience of reference:-
“4.That the appellant states that out of 11 respondents, 10 numbers of respondents have vacated their quarter thereafter for 09 respondents their gratuity after adjustment has already been released. So far as Birendra Prasad Ojha (respondent no. 8 of the instant appeal) is concerned, after charging penal rent, an amount of Rs. 1,21,392/- is found recoverable as excess due. It is also pertinent to mention that Radha Kant Jha (respondent no. 7 of the instant appeal) has not vacated the quarter till date.
Sl SAP ID Name Address Payment status as on 23.09.2026 Paid Payment Date 1 E253162 Buddh Deb Chatterjee (Respondent no.11) 04F/C/5102 Payment made 3,603.97 07.09.2024 2 E318594 Bhogendra Narain Singh Thakur (Respondent no.5) 03C/C/0282 Payment made 10,13,597.60 29.01.2024 3 E337255 Harish Chandra Srivastava (Respondent no.2) 04F/C/7086 Payment made 12,23,135.45 06.05.2025 4 E373697 Birendra Prasad Ojha (Respondent no. 8) 06A/C/2108 Payment not made -1,21,392.00 (Recoverable Amount) 5 E376211 Mahendra Mishra (Respondent no. 6) 03C/C/0285 Payment made 11,41,356.38 06.05.2025 6 E444050 Janardan Prasad (Respondent no. 10) 01C/B/0047 Payment made 4,72,806.60 17.05.2017 7 E462979 Visheshwar Prasad Sharma (Respondent по.4) 05A/B/1064 Payment made 5,49,593.70 24.12.2025 8 E608143 Shanti Devi (Respondent no.1) 04C/C/2008 Payment made 8.186.33 18.10.2024 9 E663882 Mukul Marki (Respondent по.3) 04C/C/1117 Payment made 5,453.96 02.11.2024 10 E410358 Sachindra Prasad Pandey (Respondent no.9) 03B/C/0406 Payment made 16,63,887.00 21.04.2018 11 E381731 Radha Kant Jha (Respondent no.7) 12F/D/2192 Payment not made Not vacated 5.That it is stated that in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh and others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 025516-025517 of 2024, the appellant company is ready to make payment in the light of said judgement to the respondent no. 7 Radha Kant Jha after vacation and handing over of quarter by him.”
Mr Bibhash Sinha, consistent with the statement of Mr Indrajit Sinha referred to in our order dated 29.09.2026, has submitted that the payments made to all respondents, except the 8th respondent, will not be recovered. Insofar as the 8th respondent is concerned, Mr Sinha submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,21,392/- has been paid in excess and therefore this appeal should be allowed, permitting the recovery of this excess amount.
Mr Bibhash Sinha further submitted that all the respondents, except 7th respondent, have vacated their official quarters. He submitted that, in these circumstances, the appellants are not required to make any payment to the 7th respondent.
Nevertheless, Mr Bibash Sinha submitted that consistent with what is set out in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 25.09.2026, the appellant Company is ready to make payment to the 7th respondent in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh and others (supra) after the 7th respondent vacates and hands over the possession of the official quarter to the appellants.
Insofar as, the 7th respondent Radha Kant Jha is concerned, we dispose of the appeal by allowing the appellants to take such steps as are permissible under the law to secure his eviction from the official quarter. In the case of Radha Kant Jha, i.e., the 7th respondent herein, however, Mr Bibhash Sinha is rightly unwilling to make any concession; therefore, the decision in Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Shambhu Prasad 5 Singh and others (supra) will apply. To that extent only, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge will stand modified.
From the record, it is evident that out of eleven private respondents, ten respondents have already vacated the official quarters. Nine of such private respondents have already been paid the amount towards their gratuity claims. However, no payment has been made to the 8th respondent on the ground that Rs. 1,21,392/- is recoverable from him.
Admittedly, Shri Birendra Prasad Ojha, i.e., the 8th respondent, has already vacated the official quarter. Therefore, his case is similar to that of the remaining nine respondents, who have already been paid their gratuity claims between 2024-2025.
On the earlier occasion, a statement was made on behalf of the appellants that the appellants will not insist upon recovery of the alleged excess amount of Rs. 1,21,392/-. Mr Bibhash Sinha also repeated this statement today, pointing out that the appellants were mainly interested in having the legal position clarified. We appreciate this.
Accordingly, no recovery should be made from Birendra Prasad Ojha, i.e., the 8th respondent herein.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms and without any order for costs.
Pending I.A.s, if any, will not survive and are disposed of.