STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.versusCHOUDHARY TILOTAMA DAS & ORS.

460                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 460               [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A                   STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
                                       v.
                  CHOUDHARY TILOTAMA DAS & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 1834 of 2018.)
B                            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
C
      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,
D     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/
E
      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
F     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
G
      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
H
                                      460
     STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. CHOUDHARY                        461
                   TILOTAMA DAS

operation of it had not been extended. Under the said Scheme of        A
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
                                                                       B
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           C
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          D
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          E
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            F
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          G
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
                                                                       H
462            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     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. [Paras 14-15][466-E-F,
      G-H]
B
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1834
      of 2018.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2009 of the High Court
      of Orissa at Cuttack in W. P. (C) No. 1224 of 2002.
C                                     WITH
            C. A. No. 1835 of 2018.
             Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Sunil Kumar Jain, Punya Garg, Abhishek
      Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
             Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Sibo Sankar Mishra, Uma Kant Mishra,
D     Niranjan Sahu, Shibashish Misra, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for
      the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            RANJAN GOGOI, J.
            SLP(C) NO.34336 OF 2009
E
            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 a minimum of 15 years or who are above 40 years of age. Thereafter
F     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)
G     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
H
     STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. CHOUDHARY                                463
           TILOTAMA DAS [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

for a period of 22 (twenty two) months which period was extended.              A
Thereafter, the RSP came up with another Scheme called “Sail Scheme
for Leasing of Houses to 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
                                                                               B
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          C
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 petition in question was
closed/disposed of by the following operative direction:                       D
        “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         E
      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,    F
      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.
                                                                               G
      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 the
present appeal before this Court.
                                                                               H
464             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A            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.
B             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
C     Authority of India Limited (SAIL), had an 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
D     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
E     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 and maintained by the RSP
      itself which is, therefore, required to provide additional accommodation
      to various Government Agencies like Police, Revenue Officers,
F     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
G     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 the site in
H     connection with the expansion/modernization plans. On the strength of
     STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. CHOUDHARY                                465
           TILOTAMA DAS [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

the aforesaid statements and the official correspondences/decisions            A
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         B
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 the appellant, has submitted that the RSP is a     C
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            D
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 –            E
writ petitioners, has belied the claim made by the appellant – Steel
Authority of India Limited.
       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    F
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       G
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 clear that the lands can be used only for
                                                                               H
466             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     any 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 immediate
      future and, perhaps, new constructions will have to be raised to meet the
      increasing demand for accommodation on account of increase of
D     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
E     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 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
F     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
G     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.
H
      STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. CHOUDHARY                                467
            TILOTAMA DAS [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

        16. The appeal, consequently, is disposed of in the above terms.        A
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       B
2009.


Nidhi Jain                                               Appeals disposed of.


                                                                                C




                                                                                D




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H