Sub Post Master, Post Office Khori, ... vs Aashish Kumar And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 16085 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sub Post Master, Post Office Khori, ... vs Aashish Kumar And Another on 3 September, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114616

CWP-17501
    17501-2017 (O&M).                                        -1-




           IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
                          CHANDIGARH


205

                                           CWP--17501-2017 (O&M).
                                           Date of Decision: 03.09.2024.


SUB POST MASTER, POST OFFICE KHORI, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT REWARI AND OTHERS
                                      .. Petitioners


                   Versus

AASHISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
                  AN

                                                                   ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present:     Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate,
             M
             for the petitioners.
                     petitioner

             Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate,
             for respondent No.1.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated

14.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) P passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public

Utility Services), Rewari in case No.112 of 2015, whereby the petitioner petitioner-

Sub Post Master has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/ 1,10,000/- along

with interest @ 12% per annum and further a sum of Rs.20,000/ Rs.20,000/- has been

awarded as compensation.

2 An argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that

the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114616

CWP-17501 17501-2017 (O&M). -2-

Rewari is liable to be set aside as the mandatory procedure prescribed under

Sections 22-C C (4) to 22-C 22 (7) of the Legal S Services ervices Authorities Act, 1987,

has not been adhered to hence, the award is unsustainable. He places

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Canara Bank Versus G.S. Jayarama, Jayarama (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 776 776,,

wherein it has been specifically held that the procedure prescribed under

Sections 22-C C (4) to 22-C 22 (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 1987, is

mandatory before initiating adjudication under Section 22 22-C (8) of the Act.

3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1

contends that the proceedings have remained pending for a substantive

period and that the petitioner was required to produce the record to show

that the respondent No.1-applicant No.1 applicant was not a nominee of Nirmala Devi. He

contends that the dues dues had been wrongly retained by the petitioner petitioner-Post ost

Office ffice and that the respondent No.1-applicant No.1 applicant has been prejudiced on

account of non-payment non of the same. He, however, fairly submits that there

is no reference to any conciliation proceedings in the impu impugned gned award. He

also does not dispute the ratio of the judgment laid down in the matter of

Canara Bank Versus G.S. Jayarama (supra) (supra).

4 Under the given circumstances, this Court is not inclined to

examine the merits of the present case since the parties fai fairly admit that the

mandatory procedure of conciliation as envisaged has not been adverted to

while adjudicating the controversy and that conciliation is a pre pre-requisite requisite to

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114616

CWP-17501 17501-2017 (O&M). -3-

exercise jurisdiction under Section 22-C 22 C (8) of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987.

5 The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of at this

stage without commenting on the merits of the case lest it may cause

prejudice to the claims of the respective espective parties. The award dated

14.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) P passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public

Utility Services), Rewari in case No.112 of 2015 is set aside. A direction is

issued to the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Rewari that

the matter be decided afresh expeditiously and within a period of four

months of the date fixed by this Court for appearance of the parties after

granting an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. The parties are

directed to appear before the Permanent rmanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility

Services), Rewari on 01.10.2024 which shall then proceed further as per

law.

6 It is also directed that the amount of Rs.1,10,000/ Rs.1,10,000/- that was

initially awarded shall be kept in a time deposit account so as to fetch the

highest rate of interest till the proceedings amongst the parties are finally

decided,, so that rights of the parties are protected. The deposit shall be

subject to final orders by the Permanent Lo Lok k Adalat (Public Utility

Services), Rewari.

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114616

CWP-17501 17501-2017 (O&M). -4-

7 Pending, misc. application(s), if any shall also stand(s)

disposed of accordingly.

September 03,
          0 2024.                          (VINOD
                                            VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora                                         JUDGE

            Whether speaking/reasoned          : Yes/No
            Whether reportable                 : Yes/No




                                  4 of 4