ORDER : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.7.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Permanent & Continuous Lok Adalat (Pensioners) (for short 'Lok Adalat'), Durg, whereby the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has directed the petitioner Department to pay 12% interest per annum on an outstanding amount of retiral dues of the respondent herein within a period of two months and intimate to it about compliance of the order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working as Naib Tahsildar. Departmental enquiry was instituted against him and order dated 23.9.1989 issued by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, various charges have been levelled against him and vide order dated 15.2.2001 the respondent has been compulsory retired from service. Vide letter dated 1.6.2000, the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur has initiated another departmental enquiry against the respondent for financial irregularities committed during his tenure, for which chargesheet was issued against him. Detailed departmental enquiry was conducted and the inqury officer submitted its inquiry report on 7.8.2006 before the disciplinary authority. The inquiry officer found charges No.1, 2 & 5 to be proved and charges No.3 & 4 to be partly proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report passed an order dated 24.11.2018 imposing punishment of recovery, the amount to be calculated for which the respondent was held to be liable for financial irregularities. It was further held that the respondent would not be entitled for any backwages during the suspension period on the principles of 'No Work No Pay', but he would be entitled for continuity of service for the purpose of pension. Pursuant to such order, the Collector, Balod issued the order dated 4.1.2019 directing the respondent herein to deposit the recoverable amount to the tune of Rs.1,23,132/- to be deposited within 7 days. The respondent preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat with an grievance that the petitioner Department has not released retiral dues in spite of several representations made by him. Further in the application it has been mentioned that in spite of the fact that departmental enquiry was dropped, the petitioner Department in an illegal manner has withheld the retiral dues. 3. Further in the application it has been mentioned that in spite of the fact that departmental enquiry was dropped, the petitioner Department in an illegal manner has withheld the retiral dues. 3. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat after considering the application filed by the respondent as well as other fact available before it passed the impugned order directing the petitioner Department to pay interest @ 12% on withheld retiral dues from the date of retirement till the payment is made. 4. Ms Priyamvada Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that in Permanent Lok Adalat the State has taken the specific stand that vide order dated 4.1.2019 the Collector, Balod issued a memo to the respondent as in departmental enquiry, loss to the tune of Rs.1,23,132/- has to be recovered from him. So on depositing of such amount, arrears can be released. She would further submit that as per service rules, only 10% amount of pension as well as 10% amount of gratuity of the respondent was withheld and after culminating the departmental enquiry and ascertaining the loss, the employee / respondent has duly communicated to deposit the said loss. She contended that learned Permanent Lok Adalat did not take up any conciliation proceedings between the parties and has directly decided the dispute by the impugned order, which is contrary to the procedure established under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'Act of 1987'). So, the impugned order is not sustainable and prays to quash the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Ashok Swarnkar, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.1,23,132/- to the loss of government exchequer, the respondent has already instituted civil suit. He would further submit that the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly passed the order, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the documents annexed with writ petition. 7. Section 22C of the Act of 1987 deals with cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat which reads thus:- “22C. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the documents annexed with writ petition. 7. Section 22C of the Act of 1987 deals with cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat which reads thus:- “22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.—(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute: Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law: Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees: Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso in consultation with the Central Authority. (2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute. (3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under sub-section (1), it— (a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the application points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may be, and such party may supplement such statement with any document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such statement together with a copy of such document and other evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application; (b) may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings; (c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such other party to present reply thereto. (4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have been filed under sub-section (3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate taking into account the circumstances of the dispute. (5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation proceedings under sub-section (4), assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and impartial manner. (6) It shall be the duty of every party to the application to cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related documents before it. (7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to each of the parties concerned. (8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under subsection (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.” 8. Section 22C(4) of the Act of 1987 in a clear term stipulates that Permanent Lok Adalat shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application in such manner and only where the parties fail to reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute under subsection (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute. 9. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no such procedure has been conducted and the Permanent Lok Adalat has directly decided the matter, which is impermissible in law. 9. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no such procedure has been conducted and the Permanent Lok Adalat has directly decided the matter, which is impermissible in law. Further, in the impugned order, it was not considered that another departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent, which was pending on the date of filing of the application by the respondent before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 15.10.2017 and said inquiry was culminated vide order dated 24.11.2018 as order has been passed on merits, but relevant service laws, which are applicable about withholding of amount of pension and gratuity in case of pending departmental inquiry has also not been considered. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is perverse and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.7.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Permanent & Continuous Lok Adalat (Pensioners), Durg is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Permanent & Continuous Lok Adalat (Pensioners), Durg for deciding the case afresh strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 3.1.2023. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).