Retired SAIL Employee’s Eviction And Penal Rent Stand After He Stayed In Quarter Beyond 2015 Retention Period: Jharkhand HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the appellate order affirming eviction and penal rent where no apparent error or illegality was shown.

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the Principal District Judge’s order affirming the eviction order and penal-rent charges.

It also directed

Any pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner, a retired employee of SAIL’s Bokaro Steel Plant, occupied Quarter No. 3040, Sector 8/D, allotted to him during his service.

pp. 2–3

After his retirement on 30 June 2014, SAIL permitted him to retain the quarter until 30 June 2015.

pp. 2–3

He did not vacate it, and the Estate Officer initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

pp. 2–3

The Estate Officer ordered eviction and imposed penal rent; the Principal District Judge, Bokaro, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and affirmed that order.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner challenged the appellate order under Article 227, contending that it was unreasonable, particularly as some retiral dues remained unpaid.

pp. 2–3

SAIL stated that all retiral benefits other than gratuity had been paid and that the gratuity was retained under company policy pending vacation of the quarter and adjustment of penal rent.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the appellate order affirming eviction and penal rent where no apparent error or illegality was shown.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s continued occupation beyond the permitted retention period, and SAIL’s retention of gratuity under its policy, justified the affirmed eviction and penal-rent measures.

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction, but the Court stated that such jurisdiction requires an apparent error to be rectified.

p. 4

The proceedings arose under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, concerning occupation after expiry of the permitted retention period.

p. 2

The Court also relied on SAIL’s policy concerning penal rent and retention of gratuity, noting that the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of penal rent under that policy in its order dated 18 March 2026 in SLP (C) Nos. 025516–025517 of 2024.

pp. 3–4

04Reasoning

The petitioner had been permitted to retain the quarter only until 30 June 2015 but continued to occupy it thereafter.

p. 4

The Court noted that the company’s policy provided for penal rent after the extended retention period and for its adjustment against retained gratuity; it further observed that the Supreme Court had upheld the policy’s penal-rent provision.

pp. 3–4

As the petitioner identified no apparent error in the appellate judgment, the Court found no basis for supervisory interference under Article 227.

p. 4