2004(5) Supreme 702
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
State of Punjab & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Phulan Rani & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17738/2003)
Decided on 3-8-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Sarup Singh, Sr. A.A.G, R.S. Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : S.D. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Satinder S. Gulati, Dr. Kailash Chand and Balbir Singh Gupta, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. A simple matter has unnecessarily been complicated as a result of which there has been inordinate delay in disposing of the matter.
3. A writ petition No. 13555/1994 was filed by respondent No.1 Phulan Rani. She had claimed pension payable after demise of her husband who was employed as a Tubewell operator. The services of late Mohinder Singh Walia were terminated some time in the year 1983 on the ground that Tubewells Punjab Irrigation Department was transferred to the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation (respondent No.2 herein). However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed re-appointment of late Mohinder Singh Walia and consequentially he was absorbed in the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation. According to Phulan Devi, her husband died on 18.12.1992 after retirement in 1989. The claim of pension having been rejected by the Corporation and the State, she filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 13555/94 which came to be disposed of by Lok Adalat on 18.1.2000. The State of Punjab filed a review application taking the stand that it was not properly represented in the proceedings. In any event, there being dispute about entitlement of the pension, the writ petition could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat. The review petition was rejected on 8.9.2000. A writ petition was filed by the State of Punjab before the Punjab and Haryana High Court questioning legality of the disposal by the Lok Adalat. The writ petition was numbered as Civil Writ Petition No. 4708/2002. The High Court held that even if it is accepted that the disposal by the Lok Adalat was not the proper course, yet on merits the respondent No.1 herein was entitled to relief.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 20 of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short the Act ).
5. Per contra, Mr. S.D. Sharma, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the High Court has rightly proceeded on the basis that even if the matter could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat, there is nothing wrong, in the ultimate result holding that she was entitled to pension.
6. The matters which can be taken up by the Lok Adalat for disposal are enumerated in Section 20 of the Act which reads as follows:
"Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats:-
(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19-
(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or
(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such Court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or
(ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat,
The Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:
Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such Court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination:
Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the par
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.