Kisan Singh vs The East Central Railway Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 302 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8454 of 2018
     ======================================================

Kisan Singh Son of Late Yogendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Dhadiha House, Station Road, Dak Asthan, Mohalla- Bairagi, Gaya, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The East Central Railway through the General Manager and Ors

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai, Chan-

dauli, U.P.

3. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Mugal-

sarai, Chandauli, U.P.

4. The Senior Divisional Finance Officer, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai, Chandauli, U.P.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 23-01-2023

The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

"(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents specially respondent no. 3 and 4 to pay the parcel handling bill from September, 2014 to May, 2015 amounting Rs. 4,54,325/- for the work and ser- vices rendered by the petitioner pursuance to tender work orders/letters of acceptance which is remain dues with the respondents and could not be paid despite sev- eral representation to the respondents authorities.

(ii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents specially respondent no. 3 and 4 for payment of security deposit amount Rs. 55,000/- ap-

Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

proximately deducted from the bills of the agreements from 1.06.2012 to 31.05.2015 for the parcel handling work and services done by the petitioner pursuance to work orders/ letters of acceptance which is remain dues with the respondents and could not be paid despite sev- eral representation to the respondents authorities.

(iii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents specially respondent no. 1 and 3 for payment of 10% parcel handling bills which usually paid from zonal office, Hazipur for the period April, 2004 to 15.07.2005 (Rs. 1,25,354.80), 21.11.2005 to 20.11.2008 (Rs.1,51,686.30), 16.12.2008 to 15.12.2011 (Rs.1,00,526.80), 1.06.2012 to 31.05.2015 (Rs. 1,10,692.80), 1.06.2015 to 31.05.2018 (Rs. 1,66,624) of Gaya Railway Station and for the period 11.10.2008 to 10.10.2011 (Rs. 24,411.90) of Dehri-on-Sone which are remain dues with the respondents and could not be paid despite several representation to the respondents authorities.

(iv) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for command- ing the respondents to pay the statutory interest 18% from the abovementioned dues amount of the petitioner which could not be paid to him due to arbitrary and cal- lous attitude of the respondents authorities.

(v) For issuance of any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper of the facts and circumstances of the case and for which the petitioner may entitle." Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the in-

stant petition be disposed of exactly in the same terms as con-

tained in judgment dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Court in

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13024 of 2022, titled as M/s. Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar &

Ors.

No objection to such prayer being allowed.

In the instant case, petitioner seeks direction to the re-

spondents specially respondent nos. 3 and 4 to pay the dues

with statutory interest of 18% for the work and services ren-

dered by the petitioner pursuant to the tender work orders/let-

ters of acceptance as despite several requests and representa-

tions to the authority the same has not been paid to the peti-

tioner.

There is no response to the petitioner's request.

The dispute still survives and petitioner's request for

clearance of dues remains pending.

Well, without going into the merits of the issues, on

all counts, the dispute could have been resolved in terms of the

Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

In M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution (Supra), We

had passed the following observations and directions:-

"5. We also notice that even in those cases where the parties are governed by the Dispute Resolu- tion Mechanism, provided in terms of the agreement(s) or statutes, parties are forced to litigate endlessly before different legal foras, be it this Court or the statutory Tribunals.

6. We see no reason as to why the respondent State does not apply and take recourse to the mecha-

Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

nism provided under its own policy termed as the "Bi- har State Litigation Policy,2011". We also see no rea- son as to why the respondent State does not resort to the provisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Pro- cedure, 1908.

7. Unfortunately, parties are made to run from pillar to post, and as we have noticed, it is only where the officers of the State are interested, be it for what- ever reason and consideration, that case of few favoured individuals are settled and issues resolved, leaving the significant majority to litigate.

8. The instant case, in our considered view, is the best example where the officers and the officials of the State are found to have been lacking in adher- ing to the litigation policy, even worse, responding to the petitioner's request made in terms of written com- munications. For the purposes of setting up a stall as part of Krishi Pradarshani, during the Sonepur Mela, petitioner's services were availed. He erected a tent and submitted his bill for which only part payment was released.

9. Petitioner claims the outstanding amount to be Rs.21,67,056. The District Agriculture Officer, Saran, Chapra, the concerned officer, has already for- warded favourably, request for release of the amount, to the higher authorities. This is vide communication dated 17.08.2019. Unfortunately, the superior officers slept over the matter and despite petitioner's repeated request and reminders, and the last one being on 01.07.2022 (Annexure-3), no action stands taken, forcing initiation of current proceedings.

10. The Litigation Policy does state that-

"1.1 (b) Responsible litigant means:

a. That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating."...

... "1.2 This Policy is also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of the citizens, to respect fundamental rights and that those in charge of the conduct of Government lit- igation should never forget these basic principles."

"1.3 The twin underlying objective of this Policy is to Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

reduce pressure on the overloaded judiciary and expedite dispensation of justice..."

"IV.PREVENTION/CONTROL OF AVOIDABLE LITIGATION A

4.A Setting up Grievance Redressal System

4.A ( 1). Very often the major causes of litigation in- volving the State Government are from arbitrariness in decision making or non application of mind or non-re- sponse/ improper response to representations made by employees, including retired employees/ parties. It is seen that in most cases in respect of service matters the cause of action arises out of relief not being given as per the Rules, Government instructions or policy decisions as are in force. It is also seen that in most cases before the mat- ter reaches the Court the affected party undeservedly spends a lot of his time and effort over redressal of his grievance through normal administrative channels. In this situation all Departments of the State Government shall set up effective Grievance Redressal Committees in order to pre-empt a large number of avoidable litigation.

4. A(2). It shall be mandatory for employees, including those retired, to seek redressal, at the first instance, through this system before approaching the Courts.

4. A(3). A time limit of eight weeks or so may be fixed for deciding such representations.

4. A(4). Such Grievance Redressal Committees shall be set up in each Department at the State Level, District Level and Sub-Divisional Level and each of them shall have a Grievance Cell. All cases and issues at the request of the aggrieved party shall be reviewed to redress gen- uine grievances.

4. A(5) The Department Level Grievance Committee shall be headed by the Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the Department concerned and shall meet once a month to review the efficiency of the Grievance Redressal Sys- tem in the Department. Similarly at the District and Sub- Divisional Level, the Committee shall be headed by the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Officer, as the case may be. The District Sub Divisional Level Grievance Re- dressal Committees shall meet once every month on the first Tuesday of each month; if this is a holiday, the Com- mittee will meet on the next working day excluding "Janata ka Darbar" days, i.e., Mondays and Thursdays. Where it is found that certain Government instructions require to be reviewed, it shall refer the same to the State Level Empowered Committee. As seniority matters are a Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

major source of litigations these shall be resolved expedi- tiously by the Department and seniority lists should be updated, printed and published regularly."

"4.B. Quick Action on Representations/ Legal No- tices

4.B(1). A legal notice 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. Nowadays such notices have become a formality. When such a legal notice is served upon any Department asking for the relief the same should be decided expeditiously in accordance with the prevalent Rules/ Instructions and by a detailed speaking order. Timely response would avoid waste of public money and promote expeditious work in Court in cases which deserve to be attended to."

(Emphasis supplied)

11. Though in relation to a Government employee, but in reference to the Litigation Policy, in LPA No.1322 of 2018 ti- tled as The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Begusarai v. Anuradha Devi & Ors. disposed of on 01.02.2022, we had issued the following directions:-

"17. We notice that State has formulated a Litiga- tion Policy with the avowed object of not only reduc- ing litigation, saving avoidable cost on unproductive litigation, reducing avoidable load on judiciary with re- spect to Government induced litigation. This is in tune with the mandate of Article 39-A of the Constitution of India, obligating the State to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid. In fact, by virtue of the clauses of the State Litigation Policy, the State is under an obligation to take steps to reduce litigation, wherever possible. Now, if the employees are not paid their dues within time, obviously, they are left with no remedy but to rush to the Courts.

18. Of late, litigation pertaining to employees of the State has increased more so on account of illegal ac- tions. The action assailed is of mis-governance or avoidable omissions on the part of the Government. Why should the State force an employee/legal heir to litigate in a case where emoluments, which are undis- puted, are not disbursed in time. An employee/legal Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

heir has a constitutional right to receive the same within time, so also State is under a constitutional obli- gation and duty to disburse it within time.

19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we dis- pose of the appeal in the following manner:-

(a) The present Appeal stands dismissed uphold- ing the the judgment and order dated 25.06.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.11609 of 2014 titled as Anuradha Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.

(b) The appellant shall positively pay the entire amount in terms of the impugned judgment to the writ petitioner, namely Anuradha Devi, within a period of three weeks from today, failing which she shall be en- titled to interest @ 12% per annum. Appellant shall ensure the same, else the amount of interest shall be recovered from his salary. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two months from today.

(c) Joint Registrar (List) shall ensure supply copy of this order to all concerned. For compliance, matter be placed before the Court on 05.05.2022.

(d) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, shall ensure providing a mechanism, enabling the employees to vent out their grievances of non-dis- bursement of due and admissible wages/salaries/emol- uments. One such mechanism being of setting up a 'Web Portal' at the level of the Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the concerned Department(s), where the employees can lodge their grievances/complaints. Such grievances/ complaints shall be processed and adequately responded to within a period of reasonable period. This would facilitate speedy redressal of gen- uine grievances and prevent unnecessary litigation, clogging the wheels of administration of justice. Such endeavour shall only be in the spirit of Litigation Pol- icy, framed by the State Government. We see great ad- vantage in the use of information and technology. Not only it would result into effective and efficient redres- sal of grievances, if any, but also improve efficiency in the affairs of governance of the State, further in- stilling confidence and trust amongst the employees.

(e) Non disbursement of monetary benefits, ex- cept in the event of the dictum of law would entail consequences of recovery of the amount of interest Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

from the delinquent officer incharge for such dis- bursement."

(Emphasis supplied)

12. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to dispose of the present petition with the following di- rection(s):-

(a) The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, shall issue appropriate directions to the heads of all the concerned departments ensuring expedi- tious, consideration of the claims/counter claims set up by the parties, including that of the State; disposal of requests/representations; and dis- bursement of money undisputedly found due and payable;

(b) The person empowered and authorized to take such a decision be directed to have the needful done within a reasonable period which nor- mally, unless the laws otherwise prescribes, should not be more than six months from the date of receipt of such claim;

(c) In the event of the authority concerned sitting over the matter or not taking any action, appro- priate action be taken/proceedings initiated against such person;

(d) In so far as the instant case is concerned, Respon-

dent No. 2, namely, the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, is directed to have the petitioner's case examined and ensure early decision and dis- bursement of petitioner's legitimate dues payable under the work order. This, positively be done within a period of two months from to- day.

13. We may clarify that in the instant case, we have not adjudicated the claims on merits and leave it Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

open for the authority concerned to take a decision in accordance with law."

As mutually agreed, the instant petition stands dis-

posed of in terms of judgment passed by this Court in M/s.

Raghoji House of Distribution (Supra) and the directions

contained therein shall also govern the instant case mutatis mu-

tandi, to the extent possible.

In so far as the instant case is concerned,

(i) Respondent No.3, namely, the Senior Divisional

Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai, Chan-

dauli, U.P., is directed to have the petitioner's case examined

and ensure early decision and disbursement of petitioner's legit-

imate dues payable, if any, under the scheme, as also considera-

tion of all claims. This, positively be done within a period of

two months from today, failing which costs of Rs.5,000/- shall

be paid to the petitioner to be recovered from the personal

salary of the officer concerned.

(ii) Respondent No.1, namely, the East Central Rail-

way through the General Manager, Hazipur, Vaishali, Bihar,

shall ensure putting in place effective mechanism for grievance

redressal. This must also be done on a digital platform. Also the

general public be informed of availability and functioning of Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

such mechanism.

(iii) Failure would result into initiation of proceedings

for having deliberately violated the order and consequential ac-

tion of stoppage of salary of the concerned officer.

(iv) All issues, on merit, facts and law, are left open to

be decided by the decision making authority. However, such de-

cision has to be in compliance of all principles of natural jus-

tice.

(v) Liberty reserved to the parties to initiate a fresh

action, should the need so arise.

(vi) The Respondent No.3, namely, the Senior Divi-

sional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai,

Chandauli, U.P. shall file an affidavit of compliance of the order

within a period of three months from today and on failure, Reg-

istry shall place the file on the judicial side.

(vii) Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing

for the Railway, undertakes to immediately communicate a

copy of this order, both to Respondent No.1, namely, the East

Central Railway through the General Manager, Hazipur,

Vaishali, Bihar and Respondent No.3, namely, the Senior Divi-

sional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai,

Chandauli, U.P. This he shall do by all modes.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8454 of 2018 dt.23-01-2023

Writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observations and directions.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand dis-

posed of.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

( Partha Sarthy, J)

Bibhash/Sujit AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 25.1.2023 Transmission Date