Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 545

2026 JHHC 10538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. SONAK, C.J., RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Jhubli Devi, wife of Late Gandra Oraon – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No.60 of 2026
Decided On : 13-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate, Mr. Akhilesh Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Aman Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-VI, Mr. Rituraj, A.C. to S.C.-VI

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakhi Rani, Akhilesh Prasad
For the Respondents: Aman Kumar, Rituraj

An award passed by a statutory alternative dispute resolution forum is binding upon parties. Its non-compliance is not barred by res judicata, and constitutional courts may exercise writ jurisdiction to enforce such settlements when state authorities arbitrarily fail to implement them, thereby infringing fundamental rights.

Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21 and 226 - Award made by local settlement forum - Finality and binding nature - Non-implementation - Whether barred by principle of res judicata - A settlement arrived at during alternate dispute resolution, duly signed by parties, becomes final and binding as a decree of civil court - Such awards are not subject to challenge via appeal, but are enforceable - Writ jurisdiction is appropriate to ensure implementation of statutory settlements when authorities arbitrarily delay or refuse compliance, as such conduct violates fundamental rights - Principle of res judicata is inapplicable because prior disposal was based on mutual settlement rather than adjudication on merits. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 11, 18, 19)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Writ Court as a mechanism for enforcing statutory settlements - Court must not relegate individuals to civil execution proceedings when state authorities avoid compliance with solemn undertakings - Failure to honor such settlements undermines public confidence in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. (Paras 12, 13, 23)

Facts of the case:
Appellants, having retired, sought pensionary benefits by counting their prior temporary service. The matter was initially referred to an alternative dispute resolution forum, where a settlement was reached and an award was passed, which the respondent authorities failed to implement for over a year. Subsequent legal challenges were dismissed by the lower court on grounds of res judicata, leading to the present appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that an award in a statutory settlement forum carries the weight of a court decree and its non-implementation causes undue hardship. The reliance on res judicata was erroneous as the previous conclusion was not an adjudication on merits. State authorities are obligated to behave fairly and cannot escape their duties by raising technical objections regarding the forum of enforcement.

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking enforcement of a non-implemented settlement from a statutory dispute resolution forum is barred by res judicata, and whether the High Court has the authority to direct the implementation of such settlements under its writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: An award by a statutory settlement forum is final, binding, and executable; its deliberate non-enforcement by state entities is a violation of the constitutional rights of the affected parties, justifying judicial intervention under constitutional powers to ensure prompt compliance and the justice of the settlement.

Result: Appeal allowed; respondents were directed to implement the award within four weeks with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Table of Content
1. historical progression of the litigation from initial appointment to lok adalat settlement and subsequent dismissal on res judicata grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. appellants contend that the lok adalat award creates new causes of action, rendering res judicata inapplicable to enforcement proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. respondents argue that the writ petition is an attempt to re-agitate settled issues rather than executing a civil decree properly. (Para 14 , 15)
4. lok adalat awards are final, binding, and executable as civil decrees; challenges thereto are limited to extraordinary jurisdiction. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. state authorities must honor lok adalat settlements; the writ court can compel enforcement to prevent systemic administrative injustice. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. mandatory directive issued for execution of the lok adalat award with specific interest provisions for delay. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 26.11.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No.6739 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants observing inter alia that the same is not maintainable being barred by the principle of res judicata.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants submits that a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1298 of 2023 was filed by the writ petitioners seeking issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for pensionary and other benefits by counting their services from the date of initial appointments when they had joined as daily rated employees and not from the date of their regularization. The said writ petition was referred to the National Lok Adalat and the dispute was settled in terms of the award dated 13.07.2024 whereby the respondents were directed to extend the pensionary benefits to the writ petitioners by counting earlier services from the date of their initial appointments.

3. It is also submitted that the writ petitioners filed their respective representations along with copy of the award dated 13.07.2024, however, the same was not implemented by the respondents even after lapse of more than a year from the date of receipt of the copy of the said award.

4. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners subsequently filed Contempt Case (Civil) No.182 of 2025, however, the contempt proceeding was dropped by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025 observing that the alleged non-compliance of the award passed by the National Lok Adalat was not amenable to contempt jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the writ petitioners thereafter filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6739 of 2025 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.11.2025 observing that the same was not maintainable being barred by the principle of res judicata. It was further observed that the petitioners’ prayer was for execution of the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat, whereas the Writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India should not act as an executing court to execute a settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat.

6. It is argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the earlier writ petition was disposed of in terms of settlement arrived at by the parties in the National Lok Adalat and not by adjudication on merit by a court of competent jurisdiction. As such, the subsequent writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6739 of 2025 filed by the writ petitioners was not barred by the principle of res judicata.

7. It is also urged that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in a case where subsequent writ petition is filed seeking enforcement of the award made in a Lok Adalat which, rather gives rise to a fresh and continuing cause of action due to non-imple

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 545

Cases Referred (1)