2025:JHHC:10514-DB -1 of 2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 260 of 2021 1. The Bokaro Steel Plant, having its office at Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand), through its DGM (Law), A.K. Upadhyay, aged about 55 years, son of Sri S.N. Upadhyay, resident of 242-A Cooperative Colony, SAIL, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro Steel City, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro. 2. Sr. Manager (Town Administration), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand). 3. Sr. Manager (P&A) Final Settlement Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand). 4. Manager (Finance & Accounts) Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... Appellants Versus Shyam Deo Singh, son of Late Raghu Nath Singh, resident of Plot No. 559, Bhojpur Colony, Chas, P.O. Chas, P.S. Chas, Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro (Jharkhand). … … ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Chaitany Vijay, Advocate --------- 18/Dated: 03.04.2025 This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dt. 30th July, 2019 in W.P. (S) No. 2867 of 2008 of the learned Single Judge. 2. The respondent had filed the said writ petition against the appellants for refund of Rs.3,31,421/- to the respondent which was deducted from the retirement benefits/gratuity amount paid to the respondent. 3. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had referred to the contention of the respondent that his case is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 30325 of 2014 and the contention of the respondent refuting the same and simply recorded a conclusion in paragraph 5 as under:- 2025:JHHC:10514-DB -2 of 2- “5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into the facts on the record of the case and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents are directed to release the said amount to the petitioner forthwith along with rate of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of retention of the amount till the date of actual payment. However, it will be open for the respondents to charge normal rent i.e. Rs. 88/- per months of the quarter/premises in question for the period in which the petitioner was occupant of the quarter till his superannuation.” 4. Counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment does not contain the reasons for grant of relief to the respondent by the learned Single Judge. 5. Though counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge, since the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not mention the reasons as to why he granted relief to the respondent, the judgment dt. 30.07.2019 in W.P. (S) No. 2867 of 2008 of the learned Single Judge is set aside; and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. 6. L.P.A. is allowed, as above. No costs. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) APK/VK