Jharkhand HC Bars SAIL From Recovering ₹1.21 Lakh From Employee Who Vacated Official Quarter

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellants could recover the alleged excess payment of ₹1,21,392 from respondent No. 8, who had vacated his official quarter.

The court held

The appeal was disposed of by modifying the Single Judge’s order to the extent that Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Shambhu Prasad Singh would apply to respondent No. 7, and the appellants could take lawful steps to secure his eviction.

It also directed

No recovery of ₹1,21,392 was to be made from respondent No. 8.

The appeal was disposed of without costs, and any pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The appellants challenged a Single Judge’s order concerning payment of gratuity to employees who had occupied official quarters. By the time of the appeal, ten of the eleven private respondents had vacated their quarters; nine had received payment.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–6

The appellants withheld payment to respondent No. 8, Birendra Prasad Ojha, asserting that ₹1,21,392 was recoverable as excess, while respondent No. 7, Radha Kant Jha, had not vacated his quarter.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

The appellants stated that they would not recover amounts already paid to the other respondents and would not pursue recovery from respondent No. 8. They offered to pay respondent No. 7 in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Shambhu Prasad Singh after he vacated and handed over the quarter.

p. 5 · ¶ 7–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellants could recover the alleged excess payment of ₹1,21,392 from respondent No. 8, who had vacated his official quarter.

p. 5 · ¶ 7 · p. 6 · ¶ 12–14

ii.2. Whether respondent No. 7’s claim for payment was governed by Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Shambhu Prasad Singh, and how his continued occupation of the official quarter affected the relief to be granted.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–10

03Law Applied

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Shambhu Prasad Singh, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 025516–025517 of 2024, 2026 INSC 263, as the governing decision in respondent No. 7’s case.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3 · p. 5 · ¶ 8–10

The judgment does not set out that decision’s substantive ratio or identify any statute. As to respondent No. 8, the Court relied on the appellants’ express statement that they would not seek recovery of the alleged excess amount.

p. 6 · ¶ 13–14

04Reasoning

Respondent No. 8 had vacated his quarter and was therefore similarly situated to the other respondents who had vacated and received payment. In addition, the appellants expressly disclaimed recovery of the alleged excess; the Court accordingly directed that no recovery be made from him.

p. 6 · ¶ 12–14

Respondent No. 7, by contrast, remained in occupation. The Court applied Shambhu Prasad Singh to his case and permitted the appellants to take lawful steps to secure his eviction; it did not extend the same disposition as to payment made to the respondents who had vacated.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 9–10