Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, the Chief Administrative Officer of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 29 June 2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), Pune, which rejected the Petitioner's challenge to the PLA's jurisdiction. The Respondent, a retired employee, had filed a dispute application under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, seeking recovery of Rs.7,98,675/- with interest, which amount was deducted from his pension and gratuity at the time of retirement on the ground of excess payment. The Respondent was appointed as a Typist in 1973 and retired on 30 September 2008. The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent was inadvertently given the pay-scale of Senior Clerk, leading to excess payment, and that such mistaken payments can be recovered at any time. The Respondent contended that despite extensive correspondence from 2011 to 2018, the matter was not resolved, leading to the filing of the dispute application. The PLA, after conciliation failed, proceeded to decide the jurisdiction issue. The Petitioner argued that the PLA had no jurisdiction as the dispute did not relate to a 'public utility service' as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act. The Court examined the definition of 'public utility service' and noted that Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran is a body constituted under the Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act, 1976, working under the control of the State of Maharashtra, and provides water supply and sewerage services, which are essential public services. The Court held that the dispute regarding recovery of excess payment from pension and gratuity of a retired employee of such a body falls within the ambit of 'public utility service' under Section 22A(b). The Court further held that the PLA has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, and the Petitioner's challenge was rightly rejected. The Court also addressed the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that although an alternative remedy under Section 22C(8) of the Act exists, the writ petition is maintainable as the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the PLA's order.
Headnote
A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Permanent Lok Adalat - Jurisdiction - Public Utility Service - The dispute pertained to recovery of Rs.7,98,675/- from pension and gratuity of a retired employee of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, which is a public utility service under Section 22A(b) of the Act. The Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as it relates to a public utility service, and the Petitioner's challenge to jurisdiction was rightly rejected. (Paras 1-10)
B) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 22C(8) - Alternative Remedy - The Petitioner challenged the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat rejecting its objection to jurisdiction. The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedy under Section 22C(8) of the Act, as the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute regarding recovery of excess payment made to a retired employee of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, which is a public utility service.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 29 June 2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune, rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to jurisdiction is upheld.
Law Points
- Permanent Lok Adalat jurisdiction
- public utility service
- recovery of excess payment
- pension and gratuity
- Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987
- Section 22A(b)
- Section 22C(1)
- Section 22C(8)
- maintainability of writ petition
- alternative remedy
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (08) 66
WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2020
Mr.Ajit R. Pitale for Petitioner, Mr.Padmanabh Pise i/b.P.Padmanabh & Associates for Respondent
The Chief Administrative Officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
Shri Satish Gajanan Pradhan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Permanent Lok Adalat rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to its jurisdiction in a dispute regarding recovery of excess payment from pension and gratuity of a retired employee.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 29 June 2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune, rejecting its challenge to jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to entertain the dispute filed by the Respondent under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Previous Decisions
The Permanent Lok Adalat, by order dated 29 June 2019, rejected the Petitioner's challenge to its jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute regarding recovery of excess payment made to a retired employee of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, which is a public utility service under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 22C(8) of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the dispute does not relate to a 'public utility service' as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and therefore the PLA has no jurisdiction.
Respondent argued that the dispute relates to a public utility service as Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran provides essential services like water supply and sewerage, and the PLA has jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The dispute regarding recovery of excess payment from pension and gratuity of a retired employee of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, which is a body providing public utility services like water supply and sewerage, falls within the ambit of 'public utility service' under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain such dispute. The writ petition challenging the PLA's order on jurisdiction is maintainable despite alternative remedy as the issue goes to the root of the matter.
Judgment Excerpts
This is a Petition filed by the Chief Administrative Officer - Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran challenging the order dated 29th June, 2019 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune (“PLA”) rejecting the challenge by the Petitioner to the jurisdiction of the PLA.
The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran is a body constituted under the Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act, 1976 and Petitioner is a State functionary working under the direction, control and supervision of the State of Maharashtra.
The Respondent was appointed as a Typist on 26th July, 1973 in the Public Health Works Division, Ratnagiri.
The Respondent retired from service on 30th September, 2008 from the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Pune Division.
purported excess payment of Rs.7,98,675/- was deducted by Petitioner from Respondent’s pension and gratuity.
Respondent was constrained to file Dispute Application No.454 of 2018 before the PLA under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the “said Act”) in respect of recovery of Rs.7,98,675/- with interest at the rate 9% per annum.
Procedural History
The Respondent filed Dispute Application No.454 of 2018 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Petitioner filed its Written Statement on 12 November 2018. Conciliation failed. By joint purshis dated 6 February 2019, the matter was set for decision on jurisdiction. The PLA passed order dated 29 June 2019 rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to jurisdiction. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: 22A(b), 22C(1), 22C(8)
- Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act, 1976:
