STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. versus CHOUDHARY TILOTAMA DAS & ORS. on 12 February 2018

1. Leave granted.

2. In the year 1999, to be precise on 12[th] February, 1999, theRourkela Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as “RSP”) introduced aVoluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 covering employees who had servedfor a minimum of 15 years or who are above 40 years of age. ThereafterFby Circular dated 9[th] August, 1999 the RSP floated another schemecalled “Scheme for Allotment of Quarters to Ex-employees Separatingunder the SAIL VRS Scheme, 1999”. Under the said Scheme of 1999,employees of the RSP who were allotted official quarters were allowedto occupy such quarters on licence basis for a period of 22 (twenty two)Gmonths following their leaving the RSP/Company on the basis of voluntaryretirement.

3. The respondents, 53 (fifty three) in number, were allottedquarters by the RSP and had opted for voluntary retirement under theScheme. Accordingly, they were allowed to retain the official quarters H

for a period of 22 (twenty two) months which period was extended.Thereafter, the RSP came up with another Scheme called “Sail Schemefor Leasing of Houses to Employees, 2002”. This was on 22[nd] July,2002. The said Scheme of 2002 contemplated allotment of houses/flatson long term lease basis (33 years) to serving employees. Ex-employeeslike the respondents–writ petitioners were excluded from the purviewof the scheme.

4. The said Scheme of 2002 was challenged in a writ petitionbefore the High Court of Orissa which was instituted way back in theyear 2002. As it would appear from the pleadings of the parties beforethe High Court, while the appellant – Steel Authority of India Limited, atthat point of time, had pressed for the inclusion of the ex-employeeswithin the framework of the said Scheme of 2002, the State Governmenttook the stand that such an action may invite public criticism. No affidavitwas, however, filed by the State Government. By the impugned judgmentand order dated 7[th] September, 2009 the writ petition in question wasclosed/disposed of by the following operative direction:

“In view of such, we dispose of this writ petition with a directionto the O.P. - SAIL Authorities to consider the case of the petitionersfor allotment of quarters, which are in their occupation, on longterm sub-lease basis, in terms of the Circular dated 22.7.2002 inAnnexure-5. We further direct that in the event the quarters areallotted to the petitioners on long term sub-lease basis, the cost ofsuch quarters shall be computed at the rate at which it wasprevalent at the time when the Scheme came into force, alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum and the same shall bepaid by the petitioners. Apart from that the petitioners are alsoliable to pay the unpaid house rent, electricity duty, water charges,if any, along with the aforesaid cost. However, there shall be nocharge of penal rent from the petitioners.

We make it clear that this order only relates to those petitioners,who are presently in occupation of the quarters.

The writ petition as well as Misc. Case Nos. 842/2002, 3924/2003 & 354/2006 is also disposed of accordingly.”

5. Aggrieved, the Steel Authority of India Limited has filed thepresent appeal before this Court.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A6. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant – Steel Authority of India Ltd., Shri RatnakarDash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents–writpetitioners and Shri Shibashish Misra, learned counsel for the State ofOdisha.B7. Though several grounds including the authority of SAIL to granta sub lease as directed by the High Court has been urged, the case ofthe appellant in the appeal before us is primarily based on subsequentfacts which have been brought on record by means of an additionalaffidavit dated 22[nd] January, 2018. In the aforesaid additional affidavitdated 22[nd] January, 2018 it has been stated that the RSP, a unit of SteelCAuthority of India Limited (SAIL), had an initial production capacity of2 (two) million tons per annum which was expanded and the plantmodernized to reach a target production of 4.2 million tons per annum.This was at an overall cost of Rs.13684 crores and was completed inthe year 2013. In the said additional affidavit dated 22[nd] January, 2018Dit has been further stated that the SAIL is now engaged in the process ofenhancing the annual capacity of the RSP to 7.5 million tons per annumfor which a huge infrastructural investment will have to be made runninginto almost Rs. 2.6 million crores. It is further stated by the appellant inthe said additional affidavit dated 22[nd] January, 2018 that keeping inmind that the optimum number of employees per million ton of productionEshould be 3200, once the production capacity is raised to 7.5 million tonsthe RSP will have about 24000 employees. It is contended that theentire township of Rourkela is established and maintained by the RSPitself which is, therefore, required to provide additional accommodationto various Government Agencies like Police, Revenue Officers,FGovernment employees, employees of Government School/Colleges,Banks, Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), etc. In the said additionalaffidavit dated 22[nd] January, 2018, the appellant has further stated thatas per the directive received from the Union Cabinet Secretariat long-term lease is presently prohibited. It is further stated that presently theavailable quarters are about 19916 of which about 18300 quarters areGalready occupied by the employees/ex-employees and various otheremployees of the State Government, PSUs, etc. It is further stated thatabout 250-300 quarters are in a dilapidated condition. The remaining/vacant quarters would be required not only to house the in-comingemployees but also various Agencies that would be working at the site inHconnection with the expansion/modernization plans. On the strength of the aforesaid statements and the official correspondences/decisionsenclosed in this regard to the additional affidavit dated 22[nd] January,2018 the appellant submits that the order of the High Court should beappropriately interfered with.

8. Shri Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondents – writ petitioners has disputed the statements made by theappellant in the additional affidavit dated 22[nd] January, 2018 and hasdrawn the attention of the Court to the reply of the respondent to thesaid additional affidavit dated 22[nd] January, 2018 filed by the appellant.The learned counsel for the respondents–writ petitioners, apart fromcontesting the various statements made in the additional affidavit dated22[nd] January, 2018 filed by the appellant, has submitted that the RSP is aloss making concern and admittedly is reducing its workforce. It is claimedthat huge number of vacant quarters are available and even if theproduction capacity of the RSP is enhanced to 7.5 million tons therewould still be surplus of accommodation/quarters.

9. The respondents-writ petitioners have brought on record aCircular dated 23[rd] August, 2017 by which applications have been invitedfor allotment of one room/1 BR(L.T) quarters on licence basis for aperiod of 33 (thirty three) months. Such applications have been invitedfrom employees, ex-employees of the RSP who would be separatingfrom the RSP/Company. The said fact, according to the respondents –writ petitioners, has belied the claim made by the appellant – SteelAuthority of India Limited.

10. Insofar as the State of Odisha is concerned, Shri ShibashishMisra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha has taken astand that the appellant – Steel Authority of India Limited is free to takeits decision in the matter subject to the conditions of lease under whichthe land has been allotted to the Steel Authority of India Limited.

11. We have considered the matter.

12. “Sail Scheme for Leasing of Houses to Employees, 2002”was valid for a period of three months. The operation of it had not beenextended. Under the said Scheme of 2002, ex-employees, to whichcategory the respondents–writ petitioners belong, were not vested withany right for consideration of their cases for allotment on long-term lease.In fact, the lease deed between the State of Orissa and Steel Authorityof India Limited makes it very clear that the lands can be used only for A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe Steel plant and for the purposes ancillary thereto and that the SteelAuthority of India Limited shall not use the land for any other purposeexcept with the previous sanction of the Government.

13. “Sail Scheme for Leasing of Houses to Employees, 2002”was introduced in the year 2002. Considerable time has elapsed in theBmeantime. The Scheme of 2002 was applicable only to regular/servingemployees and not to ex-employees. In the long period of interval thathas been occasioned by the pendency of the present litigation the verybasis for introduction of the Scheme of 2002 has changed and the factsnow stated in the additional affidavit dated 22[nd] January, 2018 of theappellant – Steel Authority of India Limited would indicate that todayCany long-term lease of quarters built/maintained by the RSP is not feasible.In fact, according to the appellant – Steel Authority of India Limited,there would be a shortage of accommodation/quarters in the immediatefuture and, perhaps, new constructions will have to be raised to meet theincreasing demand for accommodation on account of increase ofDproduction levels of the RSP.

14. In a situation where no legal right can be understood to havebeen vested in the respondents – writ petitioners under the Scheme of2002 and operation of the said Scheme of 2002 today is not consideredfeasible or necessary by the appellant on account of the reasons statedEin the additional affidavit dated 22[nd] January, 2018, as noticed hereinabove, we do not see how the appellant can be compelled to grant anylong-term lease of the official quarters in the RSP to the respondents –writ petitioners who are its ex-employees. Such subsequent facts anddevelopments that have taken place during the interregnum wouldcertainly be material in moulding the relief(s) and answering the issuesFarising before this Court.

15. Consequently and in the light of the above we are of the viewthat no relief can be afforded to the respondents–writ petitioners, at thispoint of time. Consequently, we allow this appeal; set aside the order ofthe High Court but at the same time we direct that the respondents–writGpetitioners (53 in number) or their legal heirs, as may be, be allowed toremain in occupation of the quarters for a period of 33 (thirty three)months with effect from today, on the expiry of which they will handovervacant and peaceful possession of the said accommodation/quarter tothe competent authority of the RSP.

16. The appeal, consequently, is disposed of in the above terms.S.L.P.(C) NO.2564 OF 2010

17. Leave granted.

18. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment/order passedin Civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34336 of2009.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H