Jharkhand High Court
Amod Prasad Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand, Jharkhand State ... on 4 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)BLJR2006, [2007(3)JCR283(JHR)]
Author: M. Karpaga Vinayagam
Bench: M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Permod Kohli
JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
Page 2007
1. Amod Prasad Ram is a retired District & Sessions Judge. He was appointed as Chairman of permanent Lok Adalat of the District of Jamshedpur by the order dated 12.3.2004 for two years. He assumed charge as such on 4.4.2004 and got superannuated in March, 2006. He presented the bills claiming Rs. 2,69,000/- for 538 sittings as he is entitled to Rs. 500/- per sitting and also the conveyance allowance of Rs. 72,000/- claiming Rs. 3000/- per month, totaling Rs. 3,41,000/-. The State Legal Services Authority paid him only Rs. 99,000/- and the balance of Rs. 2,42,000/- has not been paid. Having felt aggrieved by this, he approached this Court and filed the writ petition under Article 226, seeking for issuance of mandamus to direct the respondent-authorities to pay the statutory balance legal dues towards sitting fees as well as the conveyance allowance.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
On being appointed by the order dated 12.3.2004 as Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, he took charge on 4.4.2004. During his tenure of 2 years, he had total 538 sittings. Therefore, he furnished the bills for sitting fees and conveyance allowance @ Rs. 500/- per sitting and Rs. 3000/- per month respectively. The claim made by him came to Rs 2,69,000/- towards sitting fees and Rs. 72,000/- towards conveyance allowance He has been paid only Rs. 99,000/- and is entitled to balance of Rs. 2,42,000/-. The petitioner made various representations regarding his claim to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, but the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, sent a letter dated 18.5.2006 stating that the petitioner was entitled to sitting fees only for 76 sittings as he would be considered for sitting only on the date on which at least two cases were disposed of. Further instruction was issued by the letter dated 11.12.2005 regarding payment of conveyance allowance @ Rs. 3000/- per month, subject to the condition that there must be two sittings in a week. Page 2008 The restriction to 76 sittings towards the claim of the petitioner and the restriction that there must be disposal of two cases in a week even for claiming conveyance allowance are not consistent with the relevant Rules. As per Rule 7(2) and (3), all the working days are sitting days and he attended and worked 538 days. The Chairman is required to entertain complaint and to take all other steps for summoning the parties etc. every day, which constitutes a sitting for him. The sitting with other Members is only needed for final hearing and disposal. Hence, he as a Chairman is entitled to sitting fees on each working day on which he attended and worked.
3. The case of the respondents is as follows:
As per the relevant Rules, it cannot be said that all the working days are sitting days. Sitting day means the Chairman and Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat has to dispose of two cases in each sitting and the sitting should be arranged in such a manner so that maximum numbers of cases can be disposed of on one day of sitting and in the light of the relevant Rules. Instructions have been given to all the Officers of the Permanent Lok Adalat and as such, the calculation made by the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority is correct. Accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to the sitting fees for all the working days which the petitioner claimed as sitting days.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and also have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.
5. The question which arises for consideration in this case would relate to the interpretation of various section of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as the Act) and various Rules framed thereunder in respect of the emoluments payable to the Chairman and other Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Let us now refer to relevant sections of the Act Section 22B of the Act, which is reproduced below, deals with establishment of Permanent Lok Adalat:
22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish Permanent Lok Adalat at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification.
(2) Every Permanent Lok Adalat established for an area notified under Sub-section (1) shall consist of-
(a) a person who is, or has been, a district judge or additional district judge or has held judicial office higher in rank than that of a district judge, shall be the Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat; and
(b) two other persons having adequate experience in public utility service to be nominated by Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, appointed by the Central Authority or, as the case may be, the State Authority, establishing such Permanent Lok Adalat and the other terms and conditions of the appointment of the Chairman and other persons referred to in Clause (b) shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Page 2009
6. As per this section, Permanent Lok Adalat means a body consisting of Chairman either sitting or retired District Judge and two other persons having adequate experience of public utility service appointed by the Central Authority or State Authority.
7. Section 22C of the Act prescribes the procedure for taking cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. Section 22C 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 Page 2010 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 Sub-section (7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.
8. As per this section, any party to a dispute may make an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute and on receipt of the same, the Permanent Lok Adalat can direct each party to file written statement and thereupon conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties in such a manner as it thinks appropriate and it may formulate the terms of possible settlement of the dispute and on the basis of the settlement agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award.
9. Section 22E of the Act, which deals with quorum, is reproduced below:
22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final. - (1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them.
(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.
(3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under, this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat.
10. Next Section is 27 of the Act. This section empowers the Central Government to make Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. This is given below:
27. Power of Central Government to make rules. - (1) The Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India may, by notification, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:
...
(la) the other terms and conditions of appointment of the Chairman and other persons under Sub-section (2) of Section 22B,
(m) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.
As per this section, the Central Government is empowered to formulate Rules to carry out the provisions made in the Sections of the Act in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. In exercise of the said power conferred by the above section, the Central Government framed the relevant Rules, namely, Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms And Conditions Of Appointment Of Chairman And Other Persons) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called as the Rules, 2003).
Page 2011
11. The relevant rules of the Rules, 2003, are Rules 3 and 7, Rule 3 of the Rules, 2003, provides for sitting fee and other allowances of Chairman and other persons of Permanent Lok Adalat. This rule is reproduced as follows:
3. Sitting fee and other allowances of Chairman and other persons of Permanent Lok Adalat. - (1) When a serving Judicial Officer is appointed as Chairman, he shall receive the salary, allowances and other perquisites as are admissible to a serving Judicial Officer;
(2) When a retired Judicial Officer is appointed as Chairman, he shall be entitled to a sitting fee of rupees five hundred per sitting;
(3) Any other person shall be entitled to a sitting fee of rupees four hundred per sitting;
(4) The Chairman and other person shall be entitled to such traveling and daily allowances on official tour as are admissible to Group 'A' officers of the Central Government, (5) For the purpose of attending the sittings of Permanent Lok Adalat, the Chairman and other person shall be entitled to conveyance allowance of rupees three thousand per month.
12. As contained in Rule 3, payment of sitting fees @ Rs. 500/- per sitting is for the Chairman, who is a retired Judicial Officer, and other Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat are entitled to sitting fee @ Rs. 400/- per sitting. The very same rule further provides for payment of conveyance allowance of Rs. 3000/- per month. This rule is very much clear with reference to the sitting fee and conveyance charges for the Chairman and other Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
13. Rule 7 of the Rules 2003 deals with the place of sitting as convened by the Chairman This rule is reproduced below:
7. Place of sittings.- (1) The Permanent Lok Adalat may sit at a place specified by the Central Authority or the State Authority, as the case may be.
(2) The working days and office hours of the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be the same as that of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.
(3) The sitting of the Permanent Lok Adalat, as and when necessary, shall be convened by the Chairman.
This rule provides for place of sittings, working days and office hours of the Permanent Lok Adalat, which shall be the same as that of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. Therefore, there is no difficulty for fixing the working days But there is some difficulty with reference to the sitting day, which alone will entitle the Chairman and other Members to claim sitting fees. The reading of Rule 7(2) and 7(3) would make it clear that all the working days cannot be construed to be sitting day.
14. Based upon Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of Rules, 2003, it is argued that since the working days of the State Government are the workings of the Permanent Lok Adalat, the Chairman, who attended office on all the working days, is entitled to sitting fees for those days. In this context, the question, which arises for consideration, is what is meant by "sitting" in order to decide the sitting fees.
Page 2012
15. As per Rule 7(3), the Chairman has to convene a sitting of Permanent Lok Adalat as and when necessary. Only when Permanent Lok Adalat is convened by the Chairman for transacting the business, that day is called sitting day. As indicated above, the Permanent Lok Adalat does not mean Chairman alone. As per Section 22B, the Permanent Lok Adalat is a body consisting of Chairman and two other Members. The sitting will be complete only when all the Members or at least quorum is assembled, when the sitting was convened by the Chairman.
16. Section 22B of the Act deals with establishment of the Permanent Lok Adalat. As per this section, the Permanent Lok Adalat consists of Chairman and 2 other Members. Section 22C of the Act speaks of cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat. A conjoint reading of these sections clearly indicates that Permanent Lok Adalat means the Chairman and two Members and it is only on filing of application by a party to a dispute, the Permanent Lok Adalat will have jurisdiction to take cognizance of an application.
17. As already indicated, Sub-section (3) of Section 22E of the Act provides for quorum for the Permanent Lok Adalat, i.e. the majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat. Section 22E of the Act reads as follows:
22E. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat to be final. -
(1) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act made either on merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them.
(2) Every award of the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court.
(3) The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat under this Act shall be by a majority of the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Therefore, out of the three members, at least two must be members to constitute a valid Permanent Lok Adalat. In other words, the Act does not provide for sitting of a Permanent Lok Adalat comprising of a single member or even the Chairman. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 only speaks of working days of the Permanent Lok Adalat and not the sitting days. But a conjoint reading of Sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule 7 would make it clear that it would be open to the Permanent Lok Adalat through the Chairman to convene the sitting on any of the working days. But mere attendance of the office either by the Chairman or by the other Members on any of the working days does not come within the purview of sitting of the Permanent Lok Adalat. In other words, unless such a Permanent Lok Adalat is convened by the Chairman in terms of Sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule 7, it would not be called as sitting so as to claim sitting fee.
18. The composition of the Permanent Lok Adalat and mode of functioning as provided under Section 22C read with Section 22E of the Act are sufficient to endorse the view that for a permanent Lok Adalat to be functional, it is necessary that there should be an assembly of at least two members of the Permanent Lok Adalat for the purpose of dealing with the cases coming up before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
19. The conspectus of the relevant provisions in Section 22B, 22C and 22E of the Act would reveal that the Chairman alone has no authority and jurisdiction even to take cognizance of the application or pass any legal order on such application, unless he convenes a sitting of the Permanent Lok Adalat with other Members of the Lok Adalat If the sitting is construed to be the attendance of the office on Page 2013 working days, then there was no necessity of inserting the provision for convening of a sitting by the Chairman as provided under Rule 7(3).
20. Therefore, we hold that sitting as envisaged under Rule 7(3) only means the sitting convened by the Chairman with 2 other Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat or valid quorum is available under Section 22E(3). Therefore, the claim for sitting fees for 538 sittings cannot be considered to be legal claim.
21. The other contention of the respondents that under instruction of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority the disposal of two cases is required in a sitting to claim sitting fee does not merit acceptance. Neither the Act, nor the Rules 2003 provide for disposal of two cases or even one case in a sitting of the Permanent Lok Adalat to make it a sitting under the Rules. If the Permanent Lok Adalat convened by the Chairman with quorum has performed any statutory duty under the Act and Rules 2003, it will constitute a sitting irrespective of the fact whether any case is disposed of in such a sitting or not.
22. Similarly, we are not able to appreciate the other arguments of the counsel for the respondents that the minimum two sittings in a week are necessary to earn conveyance allowance. Payment of conveyance allowance under Rule 3(5) is per month. It has no relevance with the number of sittings per week. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to conveyance allowance for every month for any number of sittings in that month.
23. In view of our interpretation to the scope, purport and object of the provisions of the State Legal Services Authorities Act, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to examine the records of Permanent Lok Adalat during the tenure of the petitioner and whenever there was a quorum of the Permanent Lok Adalat, petitioner shall be entitled to sitting fee for said sitting, Similarly, the petitioner shall also be entitled to conveyance allowance per month for all such months when Permanent Lok Adalat had its sitting/sittings, irrespective of the number of sittings. After calculation petitioner and other Members shall be paid their dues/emoluments at the rate of Rs 500/-/Rs. 4007- per sitting and Rs. 3,000/- as conveyance allowance per month. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.