STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. versus CHOUDHARY TILOTAMA DAS & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 12-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
v.
CHOUDHARY TILOTAMA DAS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1834 of 2018.)
FEBRUARY 12, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Service law – Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Allotment of
quarters – Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) by a Steel Plant-unit
of appellant – Respondents opted for VRS – Subsequently the Steel
Plant floated a Scheme for allotment of quarters to such ex-
employees wherein employee’s allotted official quarters were allowed
to occupy such quarters on license basis for a period of 22 months
after taking VRS – Respondents allotted flats under the said Scheme
– Thereafter, another Scheme of 2002 floated by the Steel Plant,
contemplating allotment of houses on long term basis (33 years) to
serving employees – Challenge to, by ex-employees – Issuance of
direction to the Steel Plant to consider the case of the respondents
for allotment of quarters in their occupation on long term basis –
On appeal, held: Scheme of 2002 was valid for three months and
its operation was not extended – It was applicable only to regular/
serving employees and not to ex-employees – Respondents were not
vested with any right for consideration of their cases for allotment
on long term lease – In the additional affidavit dt. 22.1.2018, the
appellant stated that today any long-term lease of quarters built/
maintained by the Steel Plant was not feasible and there would be a
shortage of quarters in immediate future and new constructions
would have to be raised to meet the increasing demand for
accommodation – In view thereof, appellant cannot be compelled
to grant any long term lease of official quarters to the respondents-
its ex-employees – Order of the High Court set aside – However,
respondents directed to vacate the possession of the quarter on
expiry of 33 months – Subsequent events.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 “Sail Scheme for Leasing of Houses to
Employees, 2002” was valid for a period of three months.  The
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 460
460
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
461
operation of it had not been extended.  Under the said Scheme of
2002, ex-employees, to which category the respondents–writ
petitioners belong, were not vested with any right for
consideration of their cases for allotment on long-term lease.  In
fact, the lease deed between the State of Orissa and the appellant-
SAIL makes it very clear that the lands can be used only for the
Steel plant and for the purposes ancillary thereto and that the
appellant shall not use the land for any other purpose except
with the previous sanction of the Government. [Para 12][465-G-
H; 466-A]
1.2 “Sail Scheme for Leasing of Houses to Employees,
2002” 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 to ex-employees.  In
the long period of interval that has been occasioned by the
pendency of the instant litigation the very basis for introduction
of the Scheme of 2002 has changed and the facts now stated in
the additional affidavit of the appellant would indicate that today
any long-term lease of quarters built/maintained by the RSP is
not feasible. In fact, according to the appellant, 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. [Para 13][466-B-D]
1.3 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, it cannot
be seem how the appellant can be compelled to grant any long-
term lease of the official quarters in the RSP to the respondents-
writ petitioners who are its ex-employees. Such 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. In view therof, no relief can
be afforded to the respondents–writ petitioners, at this point of
time. The order of the High Court is set aside but at the same
time it is directed that the respondents-writ petitioners (53 in
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. CHOUDHARY
TILOTAMA DAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
462
SUPRE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.