Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Bokaro Steel Plant, a Unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, through its DGM (Law), Shri A.K. Upadhyay, son of Sri S. N. Upadhyay and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Hira Devi, wife of Biranchi Prasad Singh and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Review No.12 of 2021 With Civil Review No.13 of 2021 With Civil Review No.23 of 2021 With Civil Review No.45 of 2021
Decided On : 16-05-2024
[REVIEW PETITION] - [Gratuity and Retention of Quarters] - [Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Jharkhand High Court Rules, Rule 203] - [The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the retention of quarters by retired employees and the payment of gratuity. It emphasized that the management's retention policy was lawful, and the security deposit was not gratuity but a condition for retaining the quarters. The court interpreted Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, concluding that there was no violation of these rights. The court also highlighted the limited grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, stating that subsequent judgments do not constitute grounds for review unless they reveal an error apparent on the face of the record.]
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioners, former employees of Bokaro Steel Plant, contested the management's decision regarding the retention of quarters and the withholding of gratuity. They argued that the management had unlawfully withheld their gratuity by treating it as a security deposit for the retention of quarters beyond the authorized period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the management's actions were lawful and consistent with the retention policy. It ruled that the security deposit was not gratuity and that the management had the right to deduct dues from the deposit before refunding it. The court also noted that the review petitions lacked merit as they did not present new evidence or errors apparent on the record.
Issues: Whether the subsequent judgment in Raghbendra Singh's case constituted a valid ground for reviewing the earlier decision regarding the payment of gratuity and retention of quarters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that review petitions must be based on errors apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that could not have been presented earlier. It emphasized that a change in law or subsequent judgments does not provide grounds for review, as established in previous Supreme Court rulings.
Final Decision: The review petitions were dismissed, affirming the earlier decision regarding the management's lawful retention policy and the handling of gratuity payments.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Bokaro Steel Plant, has submitted that in pursuance to order dated 18.03.2024, the steps have been taken by making paper publication for securing appearance of the private respondents. The said paper clippings have been filed along with the affidavit.
2. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, has submitted that the notice may be deemed to be accepted.
3. It has further been submitted that the matter has already been decided by this Court in batch of cases, i.e., Civil Review No.11 of 2021, and in view thereof, the instant matter may also be disposed of.
4. It has further been submitted that there is delay in filing the review petitions, i.e., Civil Review No.12 of 2021, 13 of 2021 and 45 of 2021, but since similar issue has been decided by this Court, hence, the delay may be condoned and same order may be passed.
5. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the instant review petitions need to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Civil Review No.11 of 2021 and batch matters.
6. There is no opposition in condoning the delay since this Court has already decided the issue in Civil Review No.11 of 2021 and batch matters.
7. Considering the same, the delay in filing Civil Review No.12 of 2021, 13 of 2021 and 45 of 2021 is hereby condoned.
8. I.A. No. 3124 of 2021 filed in Civil Review No.12 of 2021, I.A. No.3125 of 2021 filed in Civil Review No.13 of 2021 and I.A. No.466 of 2022 filed in Civil Review No.45 of 2021stand allowed.
Civil Review No.12 of 2021, Civil Review No.13 of 2021, Civil Review No.23 of 2021 and Civil Review No.45 of 2021
9. This Court further is of the view that certain facts need to be referred herein which read hereunder as :-
10. It is the case of the review petitioners that the SAIL/Bokaro Steel Management did not withhold any gratuity of its employees. The amount equivalent to gratuity was deposited as security money in lieu of retention of company's quarter beyond grace period, i.e., 2 months with normal rent in normal case and 4 months in death cases. The security amount is refunded only on vacation of retained quarter after deducting all necessary dues like penal rent, damage charges, electricity bill etc.
11. The security deposit can only be refunded after vacation of the retained quarter by the respondents after deduction of dues against them i.e. penal rent and other charges too. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
12. The Management does not retain a gratuity of its retired employees and it was released along with all other retiral benefits. Those employees, who retain company's quarter after retirement, deposit security money to the Management on their own will and no interest is paid on the security deposit. Thereafter, the Management of appellants issued retention order as per Rules of the Company regarding retention of quarter.
13. As per retention policy, security deposit only can be refunded after deducting penal rent, electricity charges and water charges etc. after vacation of retained quarter by the respondents. The security deposit is given by retiring employees on their own will in lieu of not vacating company's quarter after operation.
14. It is the further case of the review petitioners/appellants that all the respondents have also crossed their authorized retention period for the company's quarter. They are occupying the company's quarter illegally and without any entitlement.
15. All the writ petitioners, thereafter, retired from the services of the appellant company. Upon application of the petitioners and their written declaration to retain the security deposit "amount equal to gratuity", the petitioners were allowed to retain quarter and beyond the prescribed period the petitioners have become unauthorized occupant of the company's house and are staying there without
The court established that review petitions cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law, and must strictly adhere to the grounds specified under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing the lim....
A review petition cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law; it must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that was not previously available.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Gratuity payments under Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be denied based on benefits from a welfare fund without proper government exemption; review petitions cannot contest previously decided matters.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
A review petition must show an apparent error on the record to succeed, as delay does not extinguish the right to continuing benefits like family pensions.
The court affirmed that inordinate delay in seeking relief undermines the ability to obtain reconsideration, emphasizing adherence to strict standards for review under CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
