The Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain and determine disputes relating to public utility services, including pension services, under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a Petition filed by the Chief Administrative Officer - Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran challenging the order dated 29th June, 2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune (“PLA”) rejecting the challenge by the Petitioner to the jurisdiction of the PLA.

2. The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran is a body constituted under the Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act, 1976 and Petitioner is a State functionary working under the direction, control and supervision of the State of Maharashtra.

3. The Respondent was appointed as a Typist on 26th July, 1973 in the Public Health Works Division, Ratnagiri. He gave his option to be continued as Typist permanently on 1st January, 1986. The Respondent was sought to be promoted as a Senior Clerk in the year 1999 but he refused to accept the said promotion. It is the case of the Petitioner that inadvertently, Applicant was given the pay-scale of Senior Clerk for which he was not legally entitled and despite being aware, the Respondent did not bring this to the notice of Petitioner’s Office. The Respondent retired from service on 30th September, 2008 from the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Pune Division.

4. On the basis that a wrong Office Order about the pay-scale can be rectified in time and payments mistakenly made can be recovered at any time, at the time of retirement of Respondent from service, purported excess payment of Rs.7,98,675/- was deducted by Petitioner from Respondent’s pension and gratuity. The Respondent raised objection against the said decision by making a representation vide letter dated 3rd August, 2013. The Respondent on the basis that his basic pay was Rs.6,300/- of Typist scale at the time of his retirement on 30th September, 2008 and despite that the Applicant was getting pension as per Rs.4,830/- basic pay entered into further protracted correspondence with Petitioner seeking entitlement of the difference in pay scale including 6th Pay Commission for an amount of Rs.7,98,675/-.

5. Respondent’s case is that despite extensive correspondence exchanged from 2011 to 2018 between Respondent and Petitioner to settle the matter amicably, the same did not lead to any tangible results and therefore the Respondent was constrained to file Dispute Application No.454 of 2018 before the PLA under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the “said Act”) in respect of recovery of Rs.7,98,675/- with interest at the rate 9% per annum.

6. After the Application was filed by Respondent before the PLA, Petitioner herein being the Opponent therein had filed its Written Statement (Exhibit–9) on 12th November, 2018 and thereafter, the matter was posted for conciliation on various dates. The conciliation failed. Thereafter by a joint purshis (Exhibit-11) filed on 6th February, 2019, it was requested that the matter be decided by the PLA by way of adjudication. A direction was given by the PLA for filing of the original service book of the Respondent. The Respondent filed his evidence (Exhibit-12) on 11th February, 2019.

7. While Respondent’s Application before the PLA was pending, Petitioner filed an Application on 12th March, 2019 challenging the jurisdiction of the PLA which came to be rejected on 29th June, 2019 by the PLA. Therefore this Petition.

8. Petitioner’s case is that earlier, one complaint was lodged by Respondent with the Lokayukta under the provisions of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971 which complaint was rejected on the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 8(1)(A) of the said Act as the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction with respect to matters relating to pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. and that there is no case pending in any Court nor Petitioner has agreed to refer the case to Lok Adalat nor has any Court referred the case to Lok Adalat. It is submitted that therefore the Application by Respondent is not covered under Sections 19(5) or 22C(1) of the said Act. It was also submitted that since the Respondent was a p