2026:JHHC:9855 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2232 of 2026 ------ Satish Kumar, son of Late Nand Kishor Choudhary, resident of House No.1308, Sector 12/E, P.O. Bokaro Steel City, P.S. Sector-12, District Bokaro. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The General Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant, at Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, Post Bokaro, District Bokaro. 2. The Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, at Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, Post Bokaro, District Bokaro. 3. The Assistant Manager (P/W), Bokaro Steel Plant, at Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, Post Bokaro, District Bokaro. 4. The Assistant Manager (Pay), Bokaro Steel Plant, at Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Bokaro, Post Bokaro, District Bokaro. 5. The Estate Officer, B.S. Limited, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhakar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate ------ 02/ 07.04.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.12.2025, passed in case no. A/E No.275/2022, by the court of Sri Kavitesh Kumar, Estate Office, B.S. City against the order dated 10.08.2020 passed in L.P.A. No.510/2018 by the Hon’ble Division Bench, by which Hon’ble Division Bench has directed to the respondents to make payment of gratuity of petitioner’s father namely Late Nand Kishor Choudary with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of actual payment and also to charge normal rent at the rate of Rs.88/- per month for the quarter after superannuation on the date of the year 2006 of the late father on the date 31.8.2006.” 2026:JHHC:9855 2 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2025 in Case No.A/E 275/2022, passed under the provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1971”). 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that in L.P.A. No.510 of 2018 (Nand Kishore Choudhary Vs. The General Manager, Bokaro Steel Plant, & Ors.), filed by father of the petitioner, a direction was given to pay the gratuity along with interest, but the respondents had not paid the same, rather initiated a proceeding under the Act of 1971 and passed an order against his claim. 5. Non-payment of gratuity cannot be said to be a ground to hold on to the public premises unauthorizedly. There is already an order in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal. Further, pendency of the case will not come in the way of the petitioner to file any contempt application if the order passed in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal has not been complied with but this cannot be a ground as stated above to hold on the property in question. 5.1. Further, the order passed while exercising powers under the Act of 1971 is appealable in terms of Section 9 of the Act of 1971. 5.2. The petitioner without preferring an appeal has approached this Court directly by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5.3. Since there is an alternative statutory remedy of appeal 2026:JHHC:9855 3 available to the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to approach the Appellate Authority by filing an Appeal within three weeks. 5.4. If such Appeal is filed, the same will be considered on merits. 5.5. If any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed, the same will be considered in view of the fact this writ petition was filed before this Court. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 07th April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 10.04.2026