BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH vs SAIL, BOKARO STEEL PLANT THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:31524
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 1079 of 2026
----
Birendra Kumar Singh, aged about 72 years, son of late
Satyanarayan Singh, resident of Quarter No.3040, Sector-8/D,
PO and PS -Harla, District Bokaro, Jharkhand
…… …. .... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, through its Director, Office at Ispat
Bhawan, Adm.Building, PO and PS Bokaro, District Bokaro,
Jharkhand
2.The Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, PO and PS Bokaro,
District Bokaro, Jharkhand ….. .... Opp. Parties
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp.Parties/SAIL:- Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocate
----
5 /28.10.2026 This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment/ order dated
01.04.2026 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro in
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.41/ 2025 whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.09.2025
passed in A/E Case No.78/2018 has been dismissed and the order of
eviction along with imposition of penal rent and other charges has
been affirmed.
1 C.M.P. No. 1079 of 2026
2026:JHHC:31524
2. Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an employee
of Bokaro Steel Plant and during the course of service, Quarter
No.3040, Sector -8/D, Bokaro Steel City was allotted to him by the
respondent authorities vide Allotment Order No.0541 dated
27.05.2002 and thereafter the petitioner has occupied the same and
living in the same quarter. He next submits that the petitioner has
attained the age of superannuation and has retired from service on
30.06.2014 vide Order No.37958/R dated 28.03.2014. He also
submits that the respondent authorities permitted the petitioner to
retain the said quarter till 30.06.2015 in accordance with the
applicable policy/rules governing retention of the quarters after
retirement. He next submits that after the retirement, several retiral
and terminal dues payable to the petitioner were not released within
a reasonable time and in view of that the petitioner has not evicted
the said quarter, however, the case was instituted by the Estate
Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant on the provisions of Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which was
registered as A/E Case No.78/2018 before the learned Estate Officer
alleging unauthorized occupation of the quarter after expiry of the
retention period which has been allowed by the order dated
22.09.2025. He next submits that against the said order, the
petitioner has preferred the appeal and by the impugned order, the
2 C.M.P. No. 1079 of 2026
2026:JHHC:31524
appeal has been dismissed and the learned Estate Officer order has
been confirmed. He next submits that even the penal rent has been
directed to charged. He next submits in view of that, the impugned
order is not reasonable and as such, the same may kindly be set
aside.
3. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent/ SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant submits that the
Company has been kind enough to extent the retention of the
quarter till 30.06.2015 and till date, the petitioner has not vacated
the same. He next submits that in terms of the Company policy,
penal rent has been charged and he also submits that the penal rent
is more than the retained amount. He submits that the entire retiral
benefits have been paid to the petitioner except the gratuity which
is being retained by the Company in terms of the policy and the
policy is that, once after the extended period, the quarter is
vacated, the Company used to pay the said gratuity and if it is not
being vacated within time, from that extended period, the penal rent
is being deducted from the gratuity amount. He submits that this
issue was the subject matter before this Court in a Batch of Cases
which travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.025516 –
025517 of 2024 by the order dated 18.03.2026 has been pleased to
held that the penal rent in terms of the policy of the company is a
3 C.M.P. No. 1079 of 2026
2026:JHHC:31524
valid one.
4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was an
employee of SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant and he has been
superannuated and has retired from service on 30.06.2014 and the
company has been kind enough to extend the period of eviction of
the quarter till 30.06.2015 and it has been pointed out that the
entire retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner except
gratuity and the policy of the company is to deduct the penal rent
from the gratuity amount and that has been affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.025516 –
025517 of 2024 by the order dated 18.03.2026 and the petitioner
has not been able to point out any apparent error in the judgment
of the learned appellate court, and sitting under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India only the apparent errors are required to be
rectified by the High Court, and there is no illegality in the impugned
order dated 01.04.2026 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.41/
2025 by the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro.
5. Accordingly, this CMP being C.M.P. No. 1079 of 2026 is,
hereby, dismissed.
6. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 28.10.2026
SI/
Uploaded/
4 C.M.P. No. 1079 of 2026