1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1834 OF 2018

[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.34336 OF 2009]

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA  LTD.            ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS CHOUDHARY TILOTAMA DAS  & ORS.     ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1835 OF 2018

[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2564 OF 2010]

JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.  SLP(C) NO.34336 OF 2009

1. Leave granted.

2. In the year 1999, to be precise on 12th

February, 1999, the Rourkela Steel Plant (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “RSP”) introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 covering employees who had served for

2

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  called  “Scheme  for Allotment  of  Quarters  to  Ex-employees Separating  under  the  SAIL  VRS  Scheme, 1999”.   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.

3. 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  called “Sail  Scheme  for  Leasing  of  Houses  to

3

Employees, 2002”. This was on 22nd July, 2002.   The  said  Scheme  of  2002 contemplated allotment of houses/flats on long  term  lease  basis  (33  years)  to serving  employees.  Ex-employees  like  the respondents–writ petitioners were excluded from the purview of the scheme.   

4. 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 the ex-employees within 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

4

petition  in  question  was  closed/disposed of by the following operative direction:

“In view of such, we dispose of  this  writ  petition  with  a 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  term sub-lease basis, in terms of the Circular  dated  22.7.2002  in Annexure-5.  We  further  direct that  in  the  event  the  quarters are allotted to the petitioners on long term sub-lease basis, 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 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

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

6. We  have  heard  Shri  Ranjit  Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant – Steel Authority of India Ltd., Shri Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing  for  the  respondents–writ petitioners  and  Shri  Shibashish  Misra, learned counsel for the State of Odisha.  

7. Though  several  grounds  including  the authority of SAIL to grant a sub lease as directed by the High Court has been urged, the case of the appellant in the appeal before us is primarily based on subsequent facts which have been brought on record by means of an additional affidavit dated 22nd

January, 2018. In the aforesaid additional affidavit dated 22nd January, 2018 it has been stated that the RSP, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), had an

6

initial  production  capacity  of  2  (two) million tons per annum which was expanded and the plant modernized 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 in the year 2013. In the said additional affidavit dated 22nd

January, 2018 it has been further stated that  the  SAIL  is  now  engaged  in  the process of enhancing the annual capacity of the RSP to 7.5 million tons per annum for  which  a  huge  infrastructural investment  will  have  to  be  made  running into almost Rs. 2.6 million crores.  It is further  stated  by  the  appellant  in  the said  additional  affidavit  dated  22nd

January,  2018  that  keeping  in  mind  that the  optimum  number  of  employees  per million ton of production should be 3200, once the production capacity is raised to 7.5 million tons the RSP will have about 24000 employees.  It is contended that the entire township of Rourkela is established

7

and maintained by the RSP itself which is, therefore, required to provide additional accommodation  to  various  Government Agencies  like  Police,  Revenue  Officers, Government  employees,  employees  of Government School/Colleges, Banks, Public Sector  Undertakings  (PSUs),  etc.  In  the said  additional  affidavit  dated  22nd

January, 2018, the appellant has further stated that as per the directive received from  the  Union  Cabinet  Secretariat long-term  lease  is  presently  prohibited. It  is  further  stated  that  presently  the available  quarters  are  about  19916  of which  about  18300  quarters  are  already occupied by the employees/ex-employees and various  other  employees  of  the  State Government,  PSUs,  etc.   It  is  further stated that about 250-300 quarters are in a  dilapidated  condition.  The  remaining/ vacant quarters would be required not only to house the in-coming employees but also various Agencies that would be working at

8

the  site  in  connection  with  the expansion/modernization  plans.   On  the strength of the aforesaid statements and the  official  correspondences/decisions enclosed in this regard to the additional affidavit  dated  22nd January,  2018  the appellant  submits  that  the  order  of  the High  Court  should  be  appropriately interfered with.  

8. Shri  Ratnakar  Dash,  learned  Senior Counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents  – writ  petitioners  has  disputed  the statements  made  by  the  appellant  in  the additional  affidavit  dated  22nd January, 2018 and has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply of the respondent to the  said  additional  affidavit  dated  22nd

January, 2018 filed by the appellant.  The learned  counsel  for  the  respondents–writ petitioners,  apart  from  contesting  the various statements made in the additional affidavit dated 22nd January, 2018 filed by

9

the appellant, has submitted that the RSP is a loss making concern and admittedly is reducing its workforce. It is claimed that huge  number  of  vacant  quarters  are available  and  even  if  the  production capacity  of  the  RSP  is  enhanced  to  7.5 million tons there would still be surplus of accommodation/quarters.  

9.  The respondents-writ petitioners have brought  on  record  a  Circular  dated  23rd

August,  2017  by  which  applications  have been invited for allotment of one room/1 BR(L.T)  quarters  on  licence  basis  for  a period of 33 (thirty three) months.  Such applications  have  been  invited  from employees,  ex-employees  of  the  RSP  who would be separating from the RSP/Company. The  said  fact,  according  to  the respondents – writ petitioners, has belied the claim made by the appellant – Steel Authority of India Limited.

10

10. Insofar  as  the  State  of  Odisha  is concerned, Shri Shibashish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha has  taken  a  stand  that  the  appellant  – Steel Authority of India Limited is free to take its decision in the matter subject to the conditions of lease under which the 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 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 Steel Authority of India Limited makes it very

11

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 the Government.  

13. “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 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  any long-term  lease  of  quarters built/maintained  by  the  RSP  is  not

12

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.   

14. 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 any long-term lease of the official quarters in the RSP to the respondents – writ petitioners who are its

13

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.  

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

14

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 passed in Civil appeal arising  out  of  Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No.34336 of 2009.

.................,J.         (RANJAN GOGOI)

.................,J.      (R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 12, 2018