Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Akhilesh Prasad on 11 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                     2025:JHHC:33573-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             L.P.A. No. 213 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary,
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbahasa Department, having
office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P. O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Secretary, to Government Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbahasa Department, having office at Project Building.
Dhurwa, P. O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. ...        Appellants
                          Versus
Akhilesh Prasad, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Bhageran Sah,
resident of Some Vihar Road No. 1 Bharam Toli Bariatu, P.O.- Bariatu
& P.S.- Sadar District- Ranchi.                      ...    Respondent
                          ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                          ---------
For the Appellants                : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V.
For the Respondent                : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate.
                                    Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate.
                                    Ms. Akansha Priya, Advocate.
                                    Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate.
                                    Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate.
                          ---------
C.A.V. On: 04.11.2025                   Pronounced On: 11.11.2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The case has a chequered history. The parties shall be

referred to as they were before the writ Court. The writ petitioner filed

a writ petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

"(I). For a direction commanding upon the respondents to treat the date of appointment of this petitioner as 10.08.2013 (instead of 28th October 2022), as the similarly situated persons were appointed on 10.08.2013 but the appointment of this petitioner was delayed for one or the other reasons and ultimately the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 28th October 2022 in the light of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court on 20.09.2017 in W.P.(S) No.3480 of 2013, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by judgment dated 26.04.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18890 of 2021. (II) To direct the respondents to pay all consequential benefits including increments, pay protection and seniority treating the date of appointment of this petitioner as 10th of August 2013.

(iii) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner."

-1 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

3. The facts are not in dispute.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a Cooperative Extension

Officer on 18.11.1995 in the unified State of Bihar. After bifurcation of

the existing State of Bihar, the State of Jharkhand came into being

and the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of

Jharkhand. The category of the petitioner was Scheduled Tribe (ST)

and even the appointment of the petitioner was made against the

post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category.

5. An advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of

the Deputy Collector through the Limited Departmental Examination,

for which class-III employees having rendered service of five years in

Jharkhand were eligible to participate in the selection process. The

petitioner participated in the selection process, wherein, his

candidature was considered in the ST category but finally, when the

result was published, his name did not figure in the select list of

candidates only because the petitioner is the original resident of the

State of Bihar and hence, not entitled for reservation in the State of

Jharkhand. This compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by

filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3480 of 2013. The writ

petition was disposed of on 22.09.2017 with a direction to treat the

petitioner in the reserved category i.e. Scheduled Tribe and his case

accordingly, was required to be considered for appointment in the

reserved category of the Scheduled Tribe. However, the State of

Jharkhand and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission preferred

Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which

was registered as L.P.A. No. 609 of 2017 and the same was allowed

-2 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

vide judgment dated 12.05.2021 by setting aside the order passed by

the learned writ Court.

6. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was

assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the petitioner by filing

S.L.P. (C) No. 18890 of 2021. The judgment passed by the learned

Division Bench of this Court was initially stayed and later on, the SLP

was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench

of this Court was set aside vide judgment dated 26.04.2022.

7. Despite the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

the respondents did not take immediate steps to appoint the

petitioner which compelled him to prefer Contempt application before

this Court being Cont. Case (C) No. 317 of 2022. It is only thereafter

that the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2022

and accordingly the contempt petition was disposed of on

21.10.2022. The petitioner took over charge for the post of the

Deputy Collector, Jharkhand Administrative Service on 03.11.2022

and submitted his representation calling from the respondents to fix

his notional date of appointment as 10.08.2013 and fix his pay

accordingly by adding all the increments and all benefits which had

been granted to other similarly situated persons. The respondents

however, did not take any action on the representation so filed by the

petitioner constraining him to approach the learned writ Court for the

reliefs, as quoted above.

8. The only ground on which the respondents contested the claim

of the petitioner was that since the petitioner was not borne in the

cadre in the year 2013, therefore, he could not be granted

-3 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

retrospective promotion and placed reliance upon two judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, State of Uttaranchal and

Another v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma reported in (2007) 1 SCC

683, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"date on which a person/ officer/ employee takes birth into cadre of same category of officer/ employee such date is of a paramount importance and on the basis of date and length of service there from the inter-se seniority amongst the same category of officer/ employee can be determined."

9. The second judgment was in the case of K. Meghachandra

Singh & Ors. Vs. Nigam Siro & Ors., reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689,

wherein, it was held "seniority should not be granted from a day when

an employee is not even borne in the cadre so as to adversely impact

those who were validly appointed in the meantime".

10. However, the learned writ Court allowed the writ petition by

relying upon the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in C. Jayachandran versus State of Kerala & Ors., reported in

(2020) 5 SCC 230; wherein at para 39 the Hon'ble Apex Court has

held as under:-

"39. The appellant was wrongfully excluded from the process of appointment on account of an illegal and arbitrary grant of moderation of marks. The Government in its Order dated 22- 12-2010 cancelled the appointment of three District and Sessions Judges who were granted benefit of moderation. Badharudeen was earlier assigned general category seat but since the appellant was higher in merit, Badharudeen was pushed down and adjusted against OBC category seat at Sl. No. 42. Badharudeen has not challenged his pushing down at Sl. No. 42 either before the learned Single Bench of the High Court or before the Division Bench of the High Court or even before this Court. Therefore, as respondent, he cannot be permitted to dispute the grant of seniority to the appellant at Sl. No. 41. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel is not helpful to the arguments raised as the appellant therein sought seniority as direct recruit from the time when the vacancies occurred. To raise such an argument, reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. N.R.

-4 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 :

(2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] , wherein this Court held that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from the date he was not borne in the service. The said finding is in the context of the claim of the appellant to claim seniority from the date of availability of the vacancies; whereas in the present case, the appellant is claiming seniority from the date the other candidates in the same selection process were appointed but the appellant is excluded on account of an illegal act of the High Court of the moderation of marks. Therefore, the said judgment is not of any help to the arguments raised."

11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the State has filed the

instant appeal raising therein, the same very contention that was

raised and negated by the learned writ Court. At the outset we may

observe that we are at a complete loss to appreciate how the State

can be permitted to re-litigate time and again and harass its

employees. It was the State which illegally did not promote the

petitioner from due date and this is clearly evident from the fact that

when the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner was duly allowed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court it was observed as under:-

"....................... The learned Single Judge of the High Court was therefore right in allowing the writ petition. The underlined portion from the order passed by the Single Judge shows that the matter was considered in the correct perspective. The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in concluding that limited departmental examination was nothing but direct recruitment from the open market."

12. Even otherwise, it is more than settled that determination of the

lis would relate back to the date of filing and the benefits thereof have

to be granted in terms of the prayer made in the original writ petition,

especially when the State has not denied the fact that similarly

situated persons had been appointed on 10.08.2013 and granted all

the benefits.

-5 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

13. In such a case, where the State is acting like a cantankerous

litigant one is bound to recall to mind the observations made by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilbagh Rai Jerry vs. Union of India,

AIR 1974 SC 130, wherein it was observed as under:-

"25. I feel impelled to make a few observations not on the merits but on governmental disposition to litigation, the present case being symptomatic of a serious deficiency. In this country the State is the largest litigant today and the huge expenditure involved make a big draft on the public exchequer. In the contest of expanding dimensions of State activity and responsibility, is it unfair to expect finer sense and sensibility in its litigation policy, the absence of which, in the present case, has led the Railway callously and cantankerously to resist an action by its own employee a small man, by urging a mere technical plea which has been pursued right up to the summit court here and has been negatived in the judgment just pronounced. Instances of this type are legion as is evidenced by the fact that the Law Commission of India in a recent report on amendments to the Civil Procedure Code has suggested the deletion of Section 80, finding that wholesome provision hardly ever utilised by Government, and has gone further to provide a special procedure for government litigation to highlight the need for an activist policy of just settlement of claims where the State is a party. It is not right for a welfare State like ours to be Janus-faced, and while formulating the humanist project of legal aid to the poor, contest the claims of poor High Court of H.P. employees under it pleading limitation and the like. That the tendency is chronic flows from certain observations I had made in a Kerala High Court decision, P.P. Abubacker v. Union of India, AIR 1972 Ker 103, 107:

para 5 which I may usefully excerpt here:

"The State under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably get involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by

-6 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

crook ; for, the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to right in court. The lay-out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and the agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic show-downs where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State High Court of H.P. litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Minister of India way back in 1957. Tis second appeal strikes me as an instance of disregard of that policy."

14. It must be remembered that the "State" as defined under

Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not an ordinary party trying

to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook.

The State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial

defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker

party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply

because legal devices provide such an opportunity.

-7 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

15. This Court has no hesitation to conclude that public money

has been wasted because of the adamant behaviour of the officers

of appellants-State due to litigious attitude adopted by those officers

in pursuing the instant litigation before this Court.

16. In Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs. Mohan Lal

(2010) 1 SCC 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is a

matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigations by

Governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. It was

further observed that statutory authorities which existed for to

discharge statutory functions in public interest should be responsible

litigants and cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections nor act in a

callous and high-handed manner. It would be apposite to refer to the

relevant observations, which reads thus:

"5. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner. They can not behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected.

6. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the governments and statutory authorities should be model or

-8 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf.

7. In Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs. Union of India [(1974) 3 SCC 554] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted with approval, the following statement (from an earlier decision of the Kerala High Court (P.P. Abubacker vs. Union of India, AIR 1972 Ker 103, AIR pp. 107-08, para 5)]:(SCC p.562, para 25) "25.......'5. ....."The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in court. The lay-out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic show-downs where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on

-9 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957.' "

17. In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4

SCC 176 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: (SCC p. 177, para 2):

"2. .... It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable...."

18. In a three Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh & Ors. v.

Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh [(1985)

3 SCC 737]: the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: (SCC p. 741, para 3)

"3... The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen."

19. Unwarranted litigation by governments and statutory authorities basically stem from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are:

(i) All claims against the government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest court of the land.

(ii) If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the Court and secures a decision.

The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision making. Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will

-10 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making to courts and Tribunals."

20. In Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and another vs. Mathias

Oram and others (2010) 11 SCC 269, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed as under:-

10. The counter argument goes like this. It is very often the process of development that most starkly confirms the fears ex pressed by Dr. Ambedkar about our democracy. A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalized citizens.

11. This is not to say that the relevant laws are perfect and very sympathetic towards the dispossessed. There are various studies that detail the impact of dispossession from their lands on tribal people. It is pointed out that even when laws relating to land acquisition and resettlement are implemented perfectly and comprehensively (and that happens rarely!), uncomfortable questions remain. For a people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic.

21. In Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani and another (2012)

8 SCC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the approach of

the Government to litigate and observed as under:-

2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers' skin. Judicial system is overburdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central

-11 of 24-

2025:JHHC:33573-DB

Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.

22. In Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala and

others vs. Atma Singh Grewal (2014) 13 SCC 666, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court noted the facts that Courts are burdened with

unnecessary litigation primary for the reason that the Government or

Public Sector Undertakings etc. decide to litigate even when there is

no merit in the claim. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant

observations, which read thus:-

8. It is not the first time that the Court had to express its anguish. We would like to observe that the mind set of the Government agencies/undertakings in filing unnecessarily appeals was taken note of by the Law Commission of India way back in 1973, in its 54th report. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid report of the Law Commission as well as National Litigation Policy for the States which was evolved at an All India Law Ministers Conference in the year 1972, this Court had to emphasize that there should not be unnecessary litigation or appeals. It was so done in the case of Mundrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 1979 4 SCC 701. We would also like to reproduce the following words of wisdom expressed by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who spoke for the Bench, in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India and Ors., 1974 3 SCC 554.

25........5...... But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical

-12 of 24-

2025:JHHC:33573-DB

point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in court. The lay out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic show downs where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some initiative and authority in this behalf.

9. In its 126th Report (1988), the Law Commission of India adversely commented upon the reckless manner in which appeals are filed routinely. We quote hereunder the relevant passage therefrom:

2.5. The litigation is thus sometimes engendered by failing to perform duty as if discharging a trust. Power inheres a kind of trust. The State enjoys the power to deal with public property. That power has to be discharged like a trust keeping in view the interests of the cesti que trust. Failure on this front has been more often commented upon by the court which, if it was taken in the spirit in which it was made, would have long back energised the Government and the public sector to draw up its litigation policy. When entirely frivolous litigation reaches the doorsteps of the Supreme Court, one feels exasperated by the inaction and the policy to do nothingness evidenced by blindly following litigation from court to court. Dismissing a Special Leave Petition by the State of Punjab, the Court observed that the deserved defeat of the State in the courts below demonstrates the gross indifference of the administration towards litigative diligence. The court then suggested effective remedial measures. It may be extracted:

4. We would like to emphasize that Government must be made accountable by parliamentary Social audit for wasteful litigative expenditure inflicted on the community by inaction. A statutory notice of the proposed action under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure is intended to alert the state to negotiate a just settlement or at least have the courtesy to tell the potential outsider why the claim is being resisted. Now

-13 of 24-

2025:JHHC:33573-DB

Section 80 has become a ritual because the administration is often unresponsive and hardly lives up to the parliament's expectation in continuing Section 80 in the Code despite the Central Law Commission's recommendations for its deletion. An opportunity for setting the dispute through arbitration was thrown away by sheer inaction. A litigative policy for the State involves settlement of governmental disputes with citizens in a sense of conciliation rather than in a fighting mood. Indeed, it should be a directive on the part of the State to empower its law officer to take steps to compose disputes rather than continue them in court. We are constrained to make these observations because much of the litigation in which governments are involved adds to the case load accumulation in courts for which there is public criticism. We hope that a more responsive spirit will be brought to bear upon governmental litigation so as to avoid waste of public money and promote expeditious work in courts of cases which deserve to be attended to.

Nearly a decade has passed since the observations but not a leaf has turned, not a step has been taken, and the Law Commission is asked to deal with the problem.

2.6. A little care, a touch of humanism, a dossier of constitutional philosophy and awareness of futility of public litigation would considerably improve the situation which today is distressing. More often it is found that utterly unsustainable contentions are taken on behalf of Government and public sector undertakings.

10. Even when Courts have, time and again, lamented about the frivolous appeals filed by the Government authorities, it has no effect on the bureaucratic psyche. It is not that there is no realisation at the level of policy makers to curtail unwanted Government litigation and there are deliberations in this behalf from time to time. Few years ago only, the Central Government formulated National Litigation Policy, 2010 with the "vision/mission" to transform the Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. This policy formulated by the Central Government is based on the recognition that it was its primary responsibility to protect the rights of citizens, and to respect their fundamental rights and in the process it should

-14 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

become "responsible litigant". The policy even defines the expression 'responsible litigant' as under:

Responsible litigant" means-

(i) That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating.

(ii) That false pleas and technical points will not be taken and shall be discouraged.

(iii) Ensuring that the correct facts and all relevant documents will be placed before the Court.

(iv) That nothing will be suppressed from the Court and there will not attempt to mislead any court or tribunal.

2. That Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded. The easy approach, "Let the Court decide", must be eschewed and condemned.

3. The purpose underlying this policy is also to reduce government litigation in courts so that valuable court time would be spent in resolving other pending cases so as to achieve the goal in the national legal mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years. Litigators on behalf of the Government have to keep in mind the principles incorporated in the national mission for judicial reforms which includes identifying bottlenecks which the Government and its agencies may be concerned with and also removing unnecessary government cases. Prioritisation in litigation has to be achieved with particular emphasis on welfare legislation, social reform, weaker sections and senior citizens andother categories requiring assistance must be given utmost priority.

11. This policy recognises the fact that its success will depend upon its strict implementation. Pertinently there is even a provision of accountability on the part of the officers who have to take requisite steps in this behalf. The policy also contains the provision for filing of appeals indicating as to under what circumstances appeal should be filed. In so far as service matters are concerned, this provision lays down that

-15 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

further proceedings will not be filed in service matters merely because the order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees. Also, appeals will not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against another.

12. The aforesaid litigation policy was seen as a silver lining to club unnecessary and uncalled for litigation by this Court in the matter of Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, 2010 1 SCC 512 in the following manner:

11. The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the Government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby eliminating unnecessary litigation. But it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigations. Vexatious and unnecessary litigations have been clogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for courts and tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants.

13. Alas, inspite of the Government's own policy and reprimand from this Court, on numerous occasions, there is no significant positive effect on various Government officials who continue to take decision to file frivolous and vexatious appeals. It imposes unnecessary burden on the Courts. The opposite party which has succeeded in the Court below is also made to incur avoidable expenditure. Further, it causes delay in allowing the successful litigant to reap the fruits of the judgment rendered by the Court below.

14. No doubt, when a case is decided in favour of a party, the Court can award cost as well in his favour. It is stressed by this Court that such cost should be in real and compensatory terms and not merely symbolic. There can be exemplary costs as well when the appeal is completely devoid of any merit. [See Rameshwari Devi and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi and Ors., 2011 8 SCC 249]. However, the moot question is as

-16 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

to whether imposition of costs alone will prove deterrent? We don't think so. We are of the firm opinion that imposition of cost on the State/PSU's alone is not going to make much difference as the officers taking such irresponsible decisions to file appeals are not personally affected because of the reason that cost, if imposed, comes from the government's coffers. Time has, therefore, come to take next step viz. recovery of cost from such officers who take such frivolous decisions of filing appeals, even after knowing well that these are totally vexatious and uncalled for appeals. We clarify that such an order of recovery of cost from the concerned officer be passed only in those cases where appeal is found to be ex-facie frivolous and the decision to file the appeal is also found to be palpably irrational and uncalled for.

23. In Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and others (2014) 8

SCC 470, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that State and

its agencies litigate endlessly just because lack of responsibility to take

decision. It was observed as under:-

This abuse of the judicial process is not limited to any particular class of litigants. The State and its agencies litigate endlessly up to the highest Court just because of the lack of responsibility to take decisions. So much so that we have started to entertain the impression that all administrative and executive decision-making are being left to courts just for that reason. In private litigation as well, the litigant concerned would continue to approach the higher Court, despite the fact that he had lost in every court hithertobefore. The effort is not to discourage a High Court litigant in whose perception his cause is fair and legitimate. The effort is only to introduce consequences if the litigant's perception was incorrect and if his cause is found to be not fair and legitimate, he must pay for the same. In the present setting of the adjudicatory process, a litigant no matter how irresponsible he is suffers no consequences. Every litigant, therefore, likes to take a chance even when counsel's advice is otherwise.

24. Similar reiteration of law can be found in a fairly recent judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Shankar Shukla and others

-17 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (2015) 10 SCC 400, wherein

again while referring to the earlier decision in Hymanshu's case (supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 32 as under:

"32. Further, this Court has frowned upon the practice of the Government to raise technical pleas to defeat the rights of the citizens in Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International (1979) 4 SCC 176, wherein it was opined that it is about time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Para 2 from the said case reads thus :- (SCC p.177) "2. We do not think that this is a fit case where we should proceed to determine whether the claim of the respondent was barred by Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (2 of 1905). The plea of limitation based on this section is one which the court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well-

founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable. Here, it is obvious that the claim of the respondent was a just claim supported as it was by the recommendation of the Assistant Collector of Customs and hence in the exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, we do not see any reason why we should proceed to hear this appeal and adjudicate upon the plea of the appellant based on Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (2 of 1905)."

25. In Bhusawal Municipal Council vs. Nivrutti Ramchandra

Phalak and others (2015) 14 SCC 327, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

considered the plight of farmers effected by land acquisition and creation

-18 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

of compulsive situation to avoid luxurious litigation instituted or the

circumstances created by the State. It shall be apposite to refer to the

relevant observations as contained in paras 16 to 18 of the judgment,

which read as under:-

16. The judicial process of the court cannot subvert justice for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction only in furtherance of justice. The State/authority often drags poor uprooted claimants even for payment of a paltry amount upto this Court, wasting the public money in such luxury litigation without realising that poor citizens cannot afford the exorbitant costs of litigation and, unfortunately, no superior officer of the State is accountable for such unreasonable conduct. It would be apt to quote the well known words of Justice Brennan:

"Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with. But injustice makes us want to pull things down. When only the rich can enjoy the law, as a doubtful luxury, and the poor, who need it most, cannot have it because its expense puts it beyond their reach, the threat to the continued existence of free democracy is not imaginary but very real, because democracy's very life depends upon making the machinery of justice so effective that every citizen shall believe in and benefit by its impartiality and fairness."

17. The fundamental right of a farmer to cultivate his land is a part of right to livelihood "Agricultural land is the foundation for a sense of security and freedom from fear. Assured possession is a lasting source for peace and prosperity." India being predominantly an agricultural society, there is a "strong linkage between the land and the person's status in the social system."

"10.....A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement or the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens. For people whose lives and livelihoods are

-19 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

intrinsically connected to the land. the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic."

(Vide: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v. Mathias Oram & Ors., 2010 11 SCC 269; and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2011 AIR(SC) 1989)

18. A farmer's life is a tale of continuous experimentation and struggle for existence. Mere words or a visual can never convey what it means to live a life as an Indian farmer. Unless one experiences their struggle, that headache he will never know how it feels. The risks faced by the farming community are many; they relate to natural calamities such as drought and floods; high fluctuation in the prices of input as well as output, over which he has no control whatsoever; a credit system which never extends a helping hand to the neediest; domination by middlemen who enjoy the fruits of a farmer's hard work; spurious inputs, and the recent phenomenon of labour shortages, which can be conveniently added to his tale of woes. Of late, there have been many cases of desperate farmers ending their lives in different parts of the country. The Principles of Economics provides for the producer of a commodity to determine his prices but an Indian farmer perhaps is the only exception to this principle of economics, for even getting a decent price for their produce is difficult for them.

26. The defence raised by the appellants is most bogus and frivolous

one, where public money has been squandered and the petitioner

harassed. It is a well known fact that the courts across the country are

saddled with large number of cases and the State unfortunately has

indulged in further burdening the court.

27. Time and again, the courts have been expressing their displeasure

at the Governments'/public sector undertakings' compulsive litigation

habit but a solution to this alarming trend is a distant dream. The judiciary

is now imposing costs upon the Government/public sector undertakings

-20 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

not only when it pursues cases which can be avoided but also when it

forces the public to do so. The precise time, effort and other resources go

down the drain in vain.

28. This situation is best described by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in

National Textile Corporation vs. Kunj Behari Lal (2011) 167 Comp

Cas 29 (Delhi), wherein it was observed as under:-

18. Present petition is most bogus and frivolous one and has been filed just to squander public money and to harass a common man who committed blunder by giving his property on rent to the mighty public undertaking. It is a well known fact that courts across the country are saddled with large number of cases. Public Sector undertakings indulgences further burden them. Time and again, courts have been expressing their displeasure at the Governments/Public Sector undertakings compulsive litigation habit but a solution to this alarming trend is a distant dream. The judiciary is now imposing costs upon Government/Public Sector undertakings not only when it pursues cases which can be avoided but also when it forces the public to do so.

19. Public Sector undertakings spent more money on contesting cases than the amount they might have to pay with regard to the premises which have been taken on rent by them. In addition there to, precious time, effort and other resources go down the drain in vain. Public Sector undertakings are possibly an apt example of being penny wise, pound foolish. Rise in frivolous litigation is also due to the fact that Public Sector undertakings though having large number of legal personnel under their employment, do not examine the cases properly and force poor litigants to approach the court.

20. Frivolous litigation clogs the wheels of justice making it difficult for courts to provide easy and speedy justice to the genuine litigants. Public Sector undertakings should not indulge in mindless litigation and unnecessary waste the time and public exchequer's money. A strong message is required to be sent to those litigants (whether Government or Private) who are in the habit of challenging each and every order of the trial court even if the same is based on sound reasoning and also to those litigants who go on filling frivolous applications one after another.

The aforesaid case was then dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

29. We notice that the State had formulated a litigation policy with a

vowed objective of not only reducing litigation for an avoidable cause on

-21 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

unproductive litigations, reducing avoidable load on judiciary with

respect to Government induced litigation. This is in tune with the

mandate of Article 39 of the Constitution of India obliging the State to

promote equal justice and provide free legal aid.

30. The officers of the Government would be well-advised to follow

the litigation policy so as to ensure that a mechanism that has been

developed for ensuring that all the cases are placed before a

departmental litigation monitoring committee by the officers/officials

concerned and the responsibility of the officers or officials, who fail to

do so, should be fixed. Also there must be a periodical audit of litigation

and working of the monitoring Committee and they must be effective on

conspicuous action to ensure accountability.

31. The State would further be well-advised not to file such kind of

frivolous appeals, thereby burdening the dockets of this Court.

32. We have consciously and purposefully referred to various

judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court only to show and

reflect upon the working of the State where despite orders of this Court

as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has conducted itself of

untrustworthiness and like a belligerent litigant has tried not only the

people of the State, but, even many non-State entities as to

unnecessary and otherwise avoidable litigations. Instead of wisefully

accepting the legitimate claim of the persons, the appellants-State have

not been able to resist the temptation of litigation and have fought their

battle as if it was a war. Such battles as repeatedly observed by the

Courts are otherwise, "uneven" as on one side it is public institution,

whereas, on the other side is normally a private individual.

-22 of 24- 2025:JHHC:33573-DB

33. We once again have no hesitation to conclude that the public

money is being wasted because of the adamant behavior of the officers

of the State due to their litigious attitude in pursuing avoidable litigation

and trying to justify the action/inaction, which is otherwise not at all

justifiable. Merely because the officers of the State do not have to pay

for the litigation from their own pocket, they cannot be permitted to file

frivolous petitions. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.

on 16.02.2024:-

"The respondent was reinstated by the Labour Court in the year 2001 and the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed. Thereafter, continuously the respondent has been compelled to file repeated litigation in order to get the fruits of the award of the Labour Court.

The State of Rajasthan has now come up in Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench directing for implementation of the said award.

It is unfortunate that the State of Rajasthan has been harassing the poor litigant, a part-time labourer, who was extended benefits by the Labour Court in the year 2001, i.e. for the last 22 years he has been litigating. This is totally a frivolous petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to be paid to the respondent within four weeks from today and file proof of such payment before this Court within six weeks.