UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF STEEL vs SHANTI DEVI

Court
Jharkhand High Court



( 2026:JHHC:31315-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 269 of 2021
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Government of India,
New Delhi-110 001, P.O. New Delhi, P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi.
2. The Management of Steel Authority of India Limited, a company registered
under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Ispat Bhawan,
Lodi Road, New Delhi, and one of its Unit known as Bokaro Steel Plant of
Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro Steel City, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District
Bokaro, through its D.G.M. (Law) A.K. Upadhyay, aged about 55 years, son
of Shri S.N. Upadhyay, resident of 242-A, Cooperative Colony, SAIL Bokaro
Steel City, P.O. Bokaro Steel City, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro
(Jharkhand).
3. Bokaro Steel Limited, a Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, through its
Managing Director, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro Steel City, P.S. Bokaro
Steel City, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
4. Executive Director (E&A), Bokaro Steel Limited, having its office at
Administrative Building, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro
(Jharkhand).
5. General Manager (Town Administration), Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro Steel
City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
…… …… Appellants
Versus
1. Shanti Devi (Staff No. 608143), daughter of Late P.K. Ram, resident of
Quarter No. 2008, Sector-4C, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S.
Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
2. Harish Chandra Srivastava (Staff No. 337255), son of Late Baleshwar Prasad
Srivastava, resident of Quarter No. 7086, Sector-4F, Bokaro Steel City, P.O.
Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).

3. Mukul Marki (Staff No. 663882), son of Late P.D. Marki, resident of Quarter
No. 1117, Sector-4C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District
Bokaro (Jharkhand).
4. Visheshwar Prasad Sharma (Staff No. 462979), son of Late Barahmdeo
Prasad, resident of Quarter No. 1064, Sector-5A, Bokaro Steel City, P.O.
Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
5. Bhogendra Narain Singh Thakur (Staff No. 318594), son of Late Surja Narain
Singh Thakur, resident of Quarter No. 282, Sector-3C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O.
Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
6. Mahendra Mishra (Staff No. 376211), son of Shri Sita Ram Mishra, resident
of Quarter No. 285, Sector-3C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro,
District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
7. Radha Kan Jha (Staff No. 381731), son of Late Shambhu Nath Jha, resident of
Quarter No. 2192, Sector-12F, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro,
District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
8. Birendra Prasad Ojha (Staff No. 373697), son of Late Brij Bihari Ojha, resident
of Quarter No. 2108, Sector-6A, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro,
District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
9. Sachindra Prasad Pandey (Staff No. 410358), son of Late Yogeshwar Pandey,
resident of Quarter No. 406, Sector-3B, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S.
Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
10. Janardan Prasad (Staff No. 444050), son of Shri Luxmi Kant, resident of
Quarter No. 47, Sector-1C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro,
District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
11. Buddh Deb Chatterjee (Staff No. 253162), son of Late Bankim Mohan
Chatterjee, resident of Quarter No. 5102, Sector-4F, Bokaro Steel City, P.O.
Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
…… ….. Respondents
1



( 2026:JHHC:31315-DB )
------
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD
------
For the Appellants : Mr Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.No.1 : Mr Krishna Prajapati, Advocate
-----
09 /Dated: 27.10.2026
1. Heard Mr Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr
st
Krishna Prajapati, learned counsel for the 1 respondent.
2. 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.
3. On 29.09.2026, after hearing Mr Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the
st
appellants, and Mr Krishna Prajapati, learned counsel for the 1 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
th
respondents except 10 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.
st
3. Mr. Krishna Prajapati, appears for the 1 respondent.
2



( 2026:JHHC:31315-DB )
st
4. Despite service, except on behalf of the 1 respondent, there
is no appearance or representation for the other respondents.
5. Since, we propose to dispose of this appeal finally at
th
Admission stage, we post the matter on 27 of October 2026,
High on Board. This is to grant the respondents an additional
opportunity.
th
6. Since this matter is of ‘abandunt caution’, we direct that 7
respondent may be re-served informing him that the matter is
th
now posted for final disposal at the Admission stage on 27 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.”

th
4. Pursuant to the above order, the 7 respondent has also been served,
and an affidavit of service has been filed by the appellants in this matter.
5. 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.
6. 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.



3



( 2026:JHHC:31315-DB )
Sl SAP ID Name Address Payment
status as on
23.09.2026
Paid Payment
Date
1 E253162 Buddh Deb
04F/C/5102 Payment
made
3,603.97 07.09.2024
Chatterjee
(Respondent
no.11)
2 E318594 Bhogendra
03C/C/0282
Payment
made
10,13,597.60
29.01.2024


Narain Singh
Thakur
(Respondent
no.5)
3 E337255 Harish
04F/C/7086

Payment
made
12,23,135.45

06.05.2025

Chandra
Srivastava
(Respondent
no.2)
4 E373697 Birendra
06A/C/2108

Payment
not made
-1,21,392.00
(Recoverable
Amount)


Prasad Ojha
(Respondent
no. 8)
5 E376211 Mahendra
03C/C/0285

Payment
made
11,41,356.38
06.05.2025

Mishra
(Respondent
no. 6)

6 E444050 Janardan
01C/B/0047

Payment
made
4,72,806.60 17.05.2017
Prasad
(Respondent
no. 10)
7 E462979 Visheshwar
05A/B/1064

Payment
made
5,49,593.70

24.12.2025

Prasad
Sharma
(Respondent
по.4)
8 E608143 Shanti Devi
(Respondent
no.1)
04C/C/2008

Payment
made
8.186.33

18.10.2024

9 E663882 Mukul Marki
04C/C/1117

Payment
made
5,453.96

02.11.2024

(Respondent
по.3)
10 E410358 Sachindra
03B/C/0406

Payment
made
16,63,887.00

21.04.2018

Prasad
Pandey
(Respondent
no.9)
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
4



( 2026:JHHC:31315-DB )
to the respondent no. 7 Radha Kant Jha after vacation and
handing over of quarter by him.”

7. 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
th
made to all respondents, except the 8 respondent, will not be recovered.
th
Insofar as the 8 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.
th
8. Mr Bibhash Sinha further submitted that all the respondents, except 7
respondent, have vacated their official quarters. He submitted that, in these
th
circumstances, the appellants are not required to make any payment to the 7
respondent.
9. 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
th
appellant Company is ready to make payment to the 7 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
th
the 7 respondent vacates and hands over the possession of the official quarter
to the appellants.
th
10. Insofar as, the 7 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.
th
In the case of Radha Kant Jha, i.e., the 7 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



( 2026:JHHC:31315-DB )
Singh and others ( supra ) will apply. To that extent only, the impugned
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge will stand modified.
11. 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
th
claims. However, no payment has been made to the 8 respondent on the
ground that Rs. 1,21,392/- is recoverable from him.
th
12. Admittedly, Shri Birendra Prasad Ojha, i.e., the 8 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.
13. 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.
14. Accordingly, no recovery should be made from Birendra Prasad Ojha,
th
i.e., the 8 respondent herein.
15. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms and without any order for
costs.
16. Pending I.A.s, if any, will not survive and are disposed of.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Manoj Prasad, J.)
October 27, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr. /
NAFR
Uploaded on 28.10.2026
6