IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP ( C ) No. 2223 of 2006
Yugeshwar Pandit .... Petitioner
Versus
Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd, Ranchi and ors... Respondents
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
For the petitioner/appellant (s) : M/s Manoj Pd,Chetan Krishna Nages
& Shalina Parween, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Rajiv Ranja, Advocate.
CAV on 21.10.2008 Pronounced on 20/11/2008
20/11/2008
. Petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing
the order dated 30.3.2006 ( annexure 7) whereby and where-under the
claim of the petitioner for allotment of residential quarter on a long term
lease (LTL) basis has been rejected by the respondents.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent HEC and
was allotted a residential quarter No. CD 18 at Sector III, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
On 14.1.2004, the respondent company issued an
advertisement vide Circular No. 2/2004 offering allotment of residential
quarters to its employees on long term lease basis. In response thereto, the
petitioner applied for allotment and on 28th May, 2004 and deposited Rs.
3,10, 200/- by way of premium payable for allotment of a ground floor
quarter.
The respondent Management offered him quarter no. CD
15/8. Though the offer of the quarter was accepted by the petitioner but
the delivery of possession of the quarter was not given by the respondents
to him. Instead, the Management allotted the quarter to the occupant who
was in forcible occupation of the said quarter. Later, on being informed
that CD 403/III at Sector III has fallen vacant after the earlier occupant had
vacated the quarter, the petitioner submitted his representation seeking
2
delivery of possession of the aforesaid quarter. Though by letters dated
29.11.2005 and 30.12.2005 (Annexures 5 series) the concerned authorities
of the respondents assured the petitioner of allotment of the said quarter,
but again the assurance was not fulfilled and the quarter was allotted to
some other person. Instead, the Management offered another quarter no.
CD 559 at Sector III. It was conveyed to the petitioner by the respondent
Management that if the petitioner accepts the offer of quarter no. CD/559,
then the allotment would be given to him soon after the stay granted by
the High Court in another writ petition is vacated.
By his letter dated 29.3.2006( annexure 6) the petitioner
accepted the offer for allotment of quarter no. CD 559. Yet, instead of
allotting the quarter to the petitioner, the respondents by their impugned
order dated 30.3.2006 ( annexure 6) rejected the petitioner’s claim for
allotment of the quarter and directed him to collect his premium amount.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he having accepted the
offer of the respondent Management for allotment of a residential quarter
on LTL basis and in token of such acceptance, having deposited the
premium amount of Rs. 3,10,200/-, the contract is deemed to have
concluded by and between the petitioner and the Management and the
respondent Management is bound to offer the quarter to the petitioner, but
the respondent Company has now retracted from its obligation under the
contract on account of the fact that by reason of a revised decision of the
Management, the amount of premium has been enhanced from Rs.
3,10,200/- to Rs. 4,90,000/- and it is only to obtain unjustified financial
benefit and with malafide motives that the allotment of the quarters has
now been denied to him. Such denial of allotment of the quarter to the
petitioner is totally discriminatory, unjustifiable and smacks of an ulterior
3
motive. Further, grievance of the petitioner is that ever since the date of the
deposit of the premium amount on 28.5.2004 which he had withdrawn
from his GPF account and the house rent allowance he has been suffering
loss on interest on the amount and further more, he is now being
threatened with forcible eviction of the quarter in his occupation and his
retiral dues have also been illegally withheld by the respondents.
3 Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent Management denying and disputing the entire claim of the
petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that though vide letter
dated 8. 5.2004, (annexure 2) the respondent Management had
provisionally allotted Quarter no CD No. 15 /8 on long term lease of 30
years, extendable to 90 years, in stages of 30 years each, to the petitioner,
on the terms that the petitioner should deposit the fixed premium amount
of Rs. 3,10,200/- within the stipulated date; the offer itself was conditional
and it was categorically stated in the letter that if due to “unforeseen
circumstances” and even after the deposit of the premium amount if the
quarter is not physically handed over to the petitioner, then the premium
amount will be refunded to him without interest and no alternative
quarter will be provided to him in lieu of the offered quarter. The said
quarter at the relevant time was in occupation of one S.K. Pandey. It is
further contended that even though the petitioner had deposited the
premium amount after accepting the offer of the aforesaid quarter, but
since even to the petitioner’s knowledge, the quarter was in occupation of
another person, the allotment of the quarter could not be completed in
favour of the petitioner by delivery of the possession of the same to him.
As regards the petitioner’s claim that the respondent
Management had offered Quarter no. CD 559/III, the stand of the
4
respondents is that the respondents had never offered the aforesaid
quarter No. CD 559/III to the petitioner under the LTL scheme. Learned
counsel for the respondents would explain that as matter of fact, the
petitioner being an employee of the company, was allowed to occupy
quarter No. CD. 18/III on normal allotment basis. The petitioner by his
letter dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure 5 ) had expressed his physical
inconvenience for residing in the allotted quarter no. CD 18/III situated
on the top floor of the building and had requested for change of the
quarter and had desired for allotment of CD 403/III in exchange. In
response, the concerned authority of the respondents had informed the
petitioner that his request for allotment of quarter No CD. 403/III has
been rejected by the allotment committee, although the committee had
decided to allot CD 559 /III to the petitioner. Learned counsel explains
further that though in the letter ( annexure 6), the Manager (Estate) of the
respondent Company had conveyed to the petitioner that long term lease
scheme was not in operation on account of the stay order passed by the
High Court and that on vacation of the stay order, the said CD 559/III
shall be regularized to the petitioner under the LTL scheme if it is
declared under the LTL zone, but such communication was totally without
authority vested in the Manager by the Management and hence, it does
not create any right in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel adds
further that though the stay order of the High Court has since been
vacated, but since CD 559/III did not fall under the LTL zone, the same
cannot be offered to any person much less the petitioner under the said
scheme.
4. From the rival submissions, the facts which emerge are:
5
(i) In response to the advertisement issued by the
respondent Management for allotment of residential quarters to its
employees under LTL Scheme, the petitioner had submitted his
application in acceptance of the offer by fulfilling the requisite conditions
namely deposit of the premium amount of Rs. 3,10,2000/- for allotment of
a ground floor quarter on 28.4.2004.
(ii) The respondent Management had offered CD 15 /8
to the petitioner on long term lease basis. However, the possession of the
allotted quarter was not delivered to the petitioner on the ground that it
was under occupation of some other person.
(iii) Subsequently, by letter ( annexure 6), the
Management had initially offered to allot quarter No. CD 559/III to the
petitioner by way of normal allotment in exchange of the quarter which
was already in his occupation, but with the assurance that such allotment
would be regularized under long term lease if declared under LTL zone
after vacation of the stay order of the High Court.
(iv) The petitioner accepted this offer by his letter dated
29.3.2006. Subsequently, the stay imposed by the High Court in another
writ petition was vacated. Thereafter, vide a fresh advertisement dated
12.6.2006 the respondent Management had offered several quarters,
including CD 559/III, for allotment under LTL scheme and allotted the
said quarter to one P.P. Vijay on 21.7. 2006. This fact has not been denied
by the respondents.
5. During the pendency of the present application, the
petitioner had superannuated from service on 31.7.2006, while all along
waiting for the allotment of the aforesaid quarter under the LTL scheme.
6
6. The above facts and circumstances clearly indicate that
there is utter lack of transparency and fairness on the part of the
respondent Management in dealing with the petitioner’s claim. When the
respondents had initially offered CD 15/8 to the petitioner under LTL
scheme, the respondent Management knew very well that the quarter
was not vacant and it was in possession of another person and yet, the said
quarter was offered for allotment to the petitioner giving him an
impression that it would be vacated and soon after eviction of the
occupant, delivery of possession of the quarter would be delivered to him
under the scheme. Instead of taking prompt and appropriate measures for
eviction of the unauthorized occupant, the respondent Management
continued to linger the matter and ultimately settled the quarter with the
unauthorized occupant instead of the petitioner. The correspondence
exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent Management
(annexure 5 and 6) would clearly indicate that in place of the original
quarter no. 15/8, the Management had offered CD 559/III to the
petitioner under the LTL scheme. The argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the respondents seeking to explain that the said offer was not
under the LTL scheme and it was only allotment by way of exchange of
the quarter which was in occupation of the petitioner under the normal
allotment procedure is not convincing at all. A plain reading of Annexures
5 and 6 would abundantly indicate that though the petitioner sought for
another quarter in exchange of the one in his occupation, his request for
the desired quarter was refused and instead, quarter no. 559/III was
offered to him, though under normal allotment basis, but with the
stipulation that the allotment of the said quarter would be regularized in
due course under LTL scheme after vacation of the stay order of the High
7
Court in a pending writ petition. The obvious inference is that even if the
quarter no. 559/III was offered to the petitioner in exchange for the
quarter presently in his occupation, yet the possession of quarter no.
559/III was not promptly delivered to the petitioner and the only hitch at
the relevant time was the stay order of the High Court in the pending writ
petition. Admittedly, the stay order was vacated, but instead of completing
the process of allotment of the said quarter to the petitioner in terms of
the assurance given under annexure 6, the respondent Management
proceeded to issue a fresh advertisement fixing a higher rate of premium
and allotted the quarter to some other person ignoring the repeated
requests of petitioner for allotment of the quarter. Such allotment of the
quarter to another person instead of the petitioner was made even at the
time when the petitioner was under employment of the respondents. The
respondents have not offered any justifiable reason/ground for refusing
allotment of quarter to the petitioner even though the offered quarter was
vacant and the formalities of allotment could have been completed by
delivering possession of the quarter to the petitioner. The plea taken by the
respondents that quarter no. CD 559/III did not fall under LTL zone is
contradicted by the fact that the very same quarter was subsequently
advertisement for allotment under LTL scheme even during the pendency
of the writ petition soon after vacation of the stay order passed in a
pending writ petition.
7. In the light of the above conduct of the respondents,
the contention of the petitioner that issuance of letter (annexure 7) rejecting
the petitioner’s claim for allotment of quarter under LTL scheme is with
mala fide and oblique motives, appears to have a reasonable basis. The
petitioner’s contention that he has been arbitrarily discriminated by the
8
concerned authorities of the respondent company is also not without basis.
The petitioner has been made to suffer mental agony, harassment and
denial of legitimate expectations created under the terms of the contract,
besides monetary loss on interest on the principle premium amount which
he had withdrawn from his GPF and deposited with the respondents in
May, 2004.
8. Having considered the above facts, it remains however
to be noted that the scheme for allotment of the quarter under LTL scheme
was admittedly for a stipulated limited period, and as informed by the
learned counsel for the respondents, there is no such further scheme under
offer. Furthermore, the petitioner has already retired from service in July,
2006 and therefore he being no more under employment of the respondent
company, he cannot claim entitlement for allotment of the quarter under
any LTL scheme which is exclusively meant for the existing employees of
the company. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner’s prayer for a
direction to the respondents to allot him a quarter under LTL scheme
cannot possibly be accepted. Nevertheless, considering the amount of the
wrong which the petitioner suffered on account of the irresponsible callous
conduct of the concerned authorities of the respondent Management and
in all fairness, it would be appropriate that the respondent Management
should pay a reasonable compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, I
hereby direct that the respondent Company shall refund the entire
premium amount deposited by the petitioner, along with interest @ 12 per
cent per annum calculated from the date of receipt of the premium
amount, till the date of issuance of the impugned letter ( annexure 7)
dated 30.3.2006. The respondent shall also pay a sum of rupees fifty
thousand to the petitioner by way of compensation for the loss and
9
detriment suffered by him on account of the negligent conduct of the
concerned authorities of the respondents. The respondent no. 2 is directed
to ensure that the above order for payment of the amount to the petitioner
is carried out and complied with within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Furthermore, the respondents shall, within the
stipulated period as mentioned above, pay the entire retiral dues of the
petitioner and till such time the payment is not made, shall allow the
petitioner to continue in occupation of the quarter presently in his
occupation on payment of the fixed monthly rent as applicable to the type
of the quarters allotted to the employees under normal allotment.
With these observations and directions, this application
is disposed of.
( D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Ambastha/AFR