Case: STEEL AUTH.OF INDIA LTD Vs. NAND KISHORE TIWARI

. In the year 1999, to be precise on 12th February, 1999, the Rourkela Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to asintroduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 covering employees who had served for a minimum of 15 years or who are above 40 years of age. Thereafter by Circular dated 9th August, 1999 the RSP floated another scheme calledfor Allotment of Quarters toSeparating under the SAIL VRS Scheme,Under the said Scheme of 1999, employees of the RSP who were allotted official quarters were allowed to occupy such quarters on licence basis for a period of 22 (twenty two) months following their leaving the RSP/Company on the basis of voluntary retirement.The respondents, 53 (fifty three) in number, were allotted quarters by the RSP and had opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme. Accordingly, they were allowed to retain the official quarters for a period of 22 (twenty two) months which period was extended. Thereafter, the RSP came up with another Scheme calledScheme for Leasing of Houses to Employees,This was on 22ndJuly, 2002. The said Scheme of 2002 contemplated allotment of houses/flats on long term lease basis (33 years) to serving employees.like the respondents–writ petitioners were excluded from the purview of the scheme.The said Scheme of 2002 was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa which was instituted way back in the year 2002. As it would appear from the pleadings of the parties before the High Court, while the appellant – Steel Authority of India Limited, at that point of time, had pressed for the inclusion of thewithin the framework of the said Scheme of 2002, the State Government took the stand that such an action may invite public criticism. No affidavit was, however, filed by the State Government. By the impugned judgment and order dated 7th September, 2009 the writ petition in question was closed/disposed of by the following operativeview of such, we dispose of this writa direction to the O.P.SAIL Authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for allotment of quarters, which are in their occupation, on long termbasis, in terms of the Circular dated 22.7.2002 inWe further direct that in the event the quarters are allotted to the petitioners on long termbasis, the cost of such quarters shall be computed at the rate at which it was prevalent at the time when the Scheme came into force, along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum and the same shall be paid by the petitioners. Apart from that the petitioners are also liable to pay the unpaid house rent, electricity duty, water charges, if any, along with the aforesaid cost. However, there shall be no charge of penal rent from themake it clear that this order only relates to those petitioners, who are presently in occupation of thewrit petition as well as Misc. Case Nos. 842/2002, 3924/2003 & 354/2006 is also disposed of accordingly.Aggrieved, the Steel Authority of India Limited has filed the present appeal before this Court.

Reasoning:
me for Leasing of Houses to Employees,was valid for a period of three months. The operation of it had not been extended. Under the said Scheme of 2002,to which category the respondents–writ petitioners belong, were not vested with any right for consideration of their cases for allotment onlease. In fact, the lease deed between the State of Orissa and Steel Authority of India Limited makes it very clear that the lands can be used only for the Steel plant and for the purposes ancillary thereto and that the Steel Authority of India Limited shall not use the land for any other purpose except with the previous sanction of thee for Leasing of Houses to Employees,was introduced in the year 2002. Considerable time has elapsed in the meantime. The Scheme of 2002 was applicable only to regular/serving employees and not toIn the long period of interval that has been occasioned by the pendency of the present litigation the very basis for introduction of the Scheme of 2002 has changed and the facts now stated in the additional affidavit dated 22nd January, 2018 of the appellant – Steel Authority of India Limited would indicate that today anylease 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 immediate future and, perhaps, new constructions will have to be raised to meet the increasing demand for accommodation on account of increase of production levels of the RSP.In a situation where no legal right can be understood to have been vested in the respondents – writ petitioners under the Scheme of 2002 and operation of the said Scheme of 2002 today is not considered feasible or necessary by the appellant on account of the reasons stated in the additional affidavit dated 22nd January, 2018, as noticed herein above, we do not see how the appellant can be compelled to grant anylease of the official quarters in the RSP to the respondents – writ petitioners who are itsSuch subsequent facts and developments that have taken place during the interregnum would certainly be material in moulding the relief(s) and answering the issues arising before this Court.