Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1083 (PNJ)

Dilbag Rai Manocha v. State Of Haryana

2004-09-21

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing, the respondents to grant pay scale, emoluments and selection grade at part with the Village Extension Workers (Gram Sachivs) in terms of order dated 8.5.1980 (Annexure P-4) which is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court (Annexure P-3). 2. After issuance of notice of motion, the respondent-State has filed reply and the petition was admitted by a Division Bench on 6.4.1987. Lateron, the petition was referred to the permanent Lok Adalat of this Court. On 14.5.2001 and 2.8.2001 the permanent Lok Adalat by passing two separate orders during the hearing allowed the writ petition. Order dated 2.8.2001 passed by the Lok Adalat reads as under : "Our order dated 14.5.2001 shall form part of this order. The petitioners were in the service of agricultural department as Agricultural Sub Inspectors. They were appointed to the post of village Extension Workers (VEWs) under the World Bank Loan Scheme. Besides them another set of employees were taken in the same service from the Panchayat Department, who were working there earlier as Gram Sewaks. It is not in dispute that the petitioners as also the other set of employees, who were taken in service as VEWs from Panchayat Department, where they were working as Gram Sewaks, are members of the same service as VEWs. In fact, this matter stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court Annexure P-3 dated 24th July, 1979, which was implemented by the State of Haryana vide order dated 8.5.1980 Annexure P-4, in respect of the Gram Sewaks from Panchayat Department, who were taken as VEWs. There can hardly be any dispute that the petitioners, who were also VEWs being the members of the same service, irrespective of their source of recruitment from Agricultural department, where they were Sub Inspectors, are also to be governed by the same conditions of service and are entitled to the same scale of pay including selection grade of Rs. 220-450 upto 20% of the strength of VEWs in each year besides incentive for improving their academic qualification and housing facility to l/3rd of them. 220-450 upto 20% of the strength of VEWs in each year besides incentive for improving their academic qualification and housing facility to l/3rd of them. The respondents shall, therefore, implement the judgment of the Supreme Court Annexure P-3 in respect of the petitioners and others VEWs who were taken from the source of Sub Inspectors from Agricultural Department to the service of VEWs within a period of three months from today and grant all the benefits, for which direction has been issued by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and which benefits in fact been granted to the Gram Sewaks, who were appointed as VEWs vide order of the State of Haryana dated 8.5.1980 Annexure P-4. The State of Haryana, however, has filed C.M. No. 20688 of 2003 impugning the competence of the Lok Adalat to adjudicate on merits of the case because there was no compromise between the parties. In Paragraph 11 of the application, an objection has been raised that no consent was ever accorded before the Lok Adalat to decide the matter in this manner by issuing directions to the respondents to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court Annexure P-3. Even on merit, the order of the Lok Adalat has been attacked. This order is a settlement and an award of this Court executable as a decree under Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be given to both the parties within seven days free of cost." 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners like Gram Sewaks were appointed as Village Extension Workers under the World Bank Loan Scheme. The Gram Sewaks who were 450 in number had approached the Supreme Court. Their petition was allowed on 24.7.1979 and a copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. In the order of the Supreme Court dated 24.7.1979 a reference has been made to Annexure P-1 which is the World Bank Loan Scheme and it has been described by the Supreme Court as Ex. P-1. The view of the Supreme Court with regard to implementation of the World Bank Loan Scheme reads as under : "Leave granted. In the order of the Supreme Court dated 24.7.1979 a reference has been made to Annexure P-1 which is the World Bank Loan Scheme and it has been described by the Supreme Court as Ex. P-1. The view of the Supreme Court with regard to implementation of the World Bank Loan Scheme reads as under : "Leave granted. Having heard the Counsel on both sides, we dispose of this appeal as it involves only a solitary point of law already covered by a decision of this Court. By virtue of Ex. P-1, the State (respondent) held out certain specific promises as an inducement for the appellants to move into a new Department (Agriculture Department). After they had gone over to the Agriculture Department, the State, by virtue of its Ex. P-5, sought to go back upon the earlier promise made in Ex. P-1. The appellants having believed the representation made by the State and having further agreed thereon cannot now be deprived of their hopes which have crystalised into rights, thanks to the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Therefore, it is not open to the State, according to the law laid down by this Court, to backtrack. We, therefore, direct the State to implement Ex. P-1 and confer such rights and benefits as are promised thereunder in entirety Shri B. Datta says that a little time may be necessary for the various Departments to readjust. We allow three months time for implementation of Ex. P-1, failing which the State will be held in breach. No costs." 4. The Lok Adalat in its order dated 2.8.2001 followed the observations made by the Supreme Court and concluded that the petitioners like Gram Sewaks were also appointed as Village Extension Workers who were drawn from Agriculture Department, whereas the Gram Sewaks were taken from the Panchayat Department on that post. On the ground that both set of employees have come from different sources but they constitute one cadre of Village Extension Workers, the Lok Adalat concluded that the order of the Supreme Court even in respect of the petitioners deserved to be implemented by the respondent-State. However, in the written statement filed by the respondent-State, the stand taken is that the case of the petitioners is entirely different than the Gram Sewaks because no sanction was given to the World Bank Loan Scheme (Annexure P-1). However, in the written statement filed by the respondent-State, the stand taken is that the case of the petitioners is entirely different than the Gram Sewaks because no sanction was given to the World Bank Loan Scheme (Annexure P-1). It has been further stated that the Gram Sewaks/Sachivs were to be governed by the rules of Development of Panchayats Department whereas the petitioners who were Agriculture Inspectors/Agriculture Sub Inspectors were to be governed by the rules of the Agriculture Department. 5. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself has been taken up for final disposal. 6. Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioners were never absorbed as Village Extension Workers and the scheme as ordered to the implemented by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 24.7.1979 has not been accepted by the Government in respect of the petitioners. The learned Counsel has also submitted that the Lok Adalat is not entitled to adjudicate a matter and issue directions to the State because its role is confined to get a compromise effected so that there may be amicable solution and settlement of those claims pending in the Courts. 7. Mr. R.M. Singh and Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that once two categories of employees are jointly put in one cadre, then it will be unfair and discrimination to treat one set of employees more favourably than the other set, unless there is distinguishing feature between the two categories like educational qualification etc. According to the learned Counsel in the present case, both set of employees were allured to join the cadre of Village Extension Workers under the World Bank Loan Scheme. It is only one category of employees of Gram Sewaks who approached the Supreme Court and order dated 24.7.1979 has been passed in their favour and the same has been even implemented by the respondent-State as it has passed an order dated 8.5.1981 (Annexure P-4). It has further been emphasised that direction be issued not only in respect of the petitioners and even in respect of those persons who have not been able to approach this Court. 8. It has further been emphasised that direction be issued not only in respect of the petitioners and even in respect of those persons who have not been able to approach this Court. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that once two categories of employees like Gram Sewaks and the Agriculture-Inspectors/Agriculture Sub Inspectors have been brought in one cadre of Village Extension Workers, there cannot be any further discrimination on the basis of their birth marks. The benefit given to one category of employees, namely, Gram Sewaks by order of the Supreme Court dated 24.7.1979 would also ensure to the petitioners as they are similarly situated. The pay structure or the hierarchy of the post in their parent department i.e. Agriculture Department would not adversely affect the claim of the petitioners. Any other view would result into violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 9. It is true that the jurisdiction and power to decide cases by adjudicating upon the issues of fact and law exclusively vests in the regular Courts. The role of the Lok Adalat is complementary by rendering assistance to the regular Courts in expeditious disposal of cases by way of compromise or settlement. However, they cannot assume the role of regular Courts and decide the cases without compromise or settlement. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sham Lal Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors., ILR 2002(2) Punjab and Haryana 537, to which I am a party. But at the same time such a plea should be raised by the State only in cases where the decision of the Lok Adalat suffers from some patent error of law. The State is not expected to raise frivolous and unnecessary objections which would increase litigation many folds as it is principal litigant before the Courts. The filing of the application for recalling the order of the Lok Adalat, therefore, cannot be appreciated. In any case I have reached the same conclusion which is recorded by the Lok Adalat. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioners and others are held entitled to the grant of pay scales which have been given to the Gram Sewaks by implementing the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 24.7.1979 (Annexure P-3). In any case I have reached the same conclusion which is recorded by the Lok Adalat. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioners and others are held entitled to the grant of pay scales which have been given to the Gram Sewaks by implementing the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 24.7.1979 (Annexure P-3). The respondents shall implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the Village Extension Workers who have been drawn from Agriculture Department. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is received by the respondents. It is made clear that this order has been expressly made for the benefit of those who have not been able to approach this Court because it is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court and the respondent-State is bound to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court.