RAM DAYAL RAI versus JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 09-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM DAY AL RAI 
\'. 
. •• : + 
JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS .. 
h 
:-
MARCH 9, 2005 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pension-Bihar Pen~ion Rules, 1950-Rule 43(a) and (bi-Government 
C · accommodation-Retention of by ex-employee, after retirement-Extension of 
time by High Court-Vacation of quartei· not within the specified period but 
two months later-Deparimental proceedings-'-Penal order withholding 
permanently 5% of the 'pensi;nfor the misconduct conimitted-On appeal 
held : Occupation of quarter during period extended by Courf is litigiou~ 
D possession-Deduction of pensionary benefit .disproportionate to the misconduct 
alleged-Balance of convenience and prime facie case in favour of ex-employee 
as he would suffer irreparable loss and injwy-However, occupation after the 
period allowed by High Court illegal-Employee directed to pay Rs. 500 p.11:1. 
as rent for the period of illegal occupation to meet ends ofjustice-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Article 136. 
E 
Appellant-ex employee of the respondent-Electricity Board did not 
vacate the Board's quarter after retirement. High Court issued direction5 
for vacation and thereafter, on humanitarian ground granted extension 
upto 1.11.1999. Appellant sought further extension of time. Division Bench 
of High Court rejected the same. Appellant vacated the Board's quarter 
F on 6.1.2000 and also informed the respondents. Thereafter, respondent-
Board issued penal order withholding permanently 5% of pension of the 
appellant under Rule 43(a) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Appellant 
challenged the penal order. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ 
petition. Division Bench also dismissed the Letter Patent Appeal. Hence 
G the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : l.l The extension of time granted by High Court and the 
occupation of the quarter during that period as per the orders of the Court 
H 
576 
R.D. RAI 1· . .IHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAKSllMANAN . .I] 577 
cannot be treated as or construed as an unauthorized occupation. The A 
continuance thereof in the quarter can, therefore, be treated only as 
litigious possession. Furthermore, the balance of convenience and the prima 
facie case is also in favour of the appellant. If the pensioner's benefit is 
cut by 5% , the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury since 
after the retirement, the pensionary benefit is the only amount available B 
to eke out livelihood for the retired employees of the Government. 
1583-C, El 
1.2. Also the penal order directing 5% cut in pensionary benefits 
under Rule 43(a) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 is disproportionate for the 
misconduct alleged against the appellant. But the fact remains that the C 
appellant-ex employee vacated the Board's quarter on 6.1.2000 whereas 
as per order of the High Court he ought to have vacated the same on 
1.11.1999. The occupation of the quarter after 1.11.1999 is illegal. Justice 
would be amply met if the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500 
per month for the period of illegal occupation. 1583-A-B, D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1599 of2005. D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.2003 of the Jharkhand High 
Court at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 88 of 2003. 
A.N. Deo and Ms. S. Janani for the Appellant. 
S.B. Upadhyay, Pawan Upadhyay, Shiv Mangat Sharma and Gopal 
Prasad for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 
10.4.2003 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in LP.A. No. 88 
of 2003 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and 
order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 
3159of2001. 
Before proceeding to consider the matter on merits, the facts can be 
stated briefly for the purpose of the present appeal. 
The appellant is an ex-employee of the respondent-Board. He retired 
on 28.2.1998 from the post of Foreman, Grade I. The appellant after retirement 
E 
F 
G 
did not choose to vacate the Board's quarter. He initially moved before the H 
S78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 2 S.C.R. 
A High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1405 of 1998 (R) wherein the High Court by 
order dated 19.2.1999 directed the appellant to vacate the·quarterwithin one 
month from the date ofteceipt of the retiral benefits. Thereafter, the appellant 
having not vacated the Board's q
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.