Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of non-payment of pension and terminal benefits to a retired teacher of St. Anthony High School, a private aided school in Goa. The respondent no.1, a former teacher, had retired on 31 August 2012 upon attaining superannuation. She complained to the Goa Human Rights Commission that the petitioner school had failed to pay her monthly pension and other terminal benefits. The Commission initiated an inquiry under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and submitted its report dated 15 September 2014. The report contained three recommendations: first, that the school should pay interest on the delayed payment of General Provident Fund within one month as admissible under the rules; second, that the school should pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant for the delay in payment of terminal benefits within one month; and third, since the Government was not at fault for the delay, such compensation should be deducted from the grant-in-aid of the school and appropriated to the Government. The school challenged this report by filing Writ Petition No.789 of 2014 on 20 November 2014. A coordinate Bench issued Rule and granted an ad-interim stay of the operation and implementation of the inquiry report on 22 December 2014. At the final hearing, the Additional Government Advocate informed the Court that because of the stay, the State Government had not proceeded to consider the report and recommendations. The Court examined the statutory scheme under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which required the Government to take a decision on the Commission's recommendations and forward its comments, including the action taken or proposed, to the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission was statutorily mandated to publish the entire inquiry report together with the Government's comments and action proposed or taken. The Court held that unless those measures were taken, no cause of action could accrue in favour of the petitioner to challenge the Commission's recommendations. The cause of action, if at all, would arise only if the Government accepted the report and directed the petitioner to implement the recommendations. The Court observed that the stay had prevented the Government from considering the report, thereby rendering the challenge premature. Consequently, the Rule was discharged with a direction to the State Government to apply its mind to the report and recommendations and take appropriate action under Section 18 of the Act within one month from the date of service of the order. The Court kept all contentions open and granted no costs. The Court clarified that once a decision affecting the rights of any party was taken, the aggrieved party could pursue legal remedies in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Human Rights - Goa Human Rights Commission - Inquiry Report Under Section 18 - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 18 - Commission initiated inquiry under Section 18 on complaint of retired teacher regarding non-payment of pension and terminal benefits; report dated 15.9.2014 recommended interest on delayed GPF, compensation of Rs.1,00,000, and deduction from grant-in-aid. Held that such recommendations do not give rise to a cause of action until State Government applies its mind and takes a decision as required by Section 18. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Premature Challenge - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 18 - Court held that writ petition challenging Commission's report was premature because State Government had not yet considered the report due to stay; cause of action could arise only if Government accepts report and directs implementation. Rule discharged with direction to Government to act within one month and aggrieved party may pursue remedy thereafter. (Paras 4-6) C) Human Rights - Statutory Procedure Under Section 18 - Obligations of Government and Commission - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 18 - Section 18 requires Government to take decision on recommendations and forward comments including action taken or proposed; Commission then must publish report with Government's comments. Court directed compliance within one month. (Paras 4,6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging the inquiry report and recommendations of the Goa Human Rights Commission is maintainable before the State Government has taken a decision under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Final Decision
Rule discharged. Directed State Government to apply its mind to the report and recommendations of the Commission and take appropriate action under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 within one month from date of service of copy of order. Aggrieved party may pursue legal remedy after decision. All contentions kept open. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Recommendations of Human Rights Commission under Section 18 of Protection of Human Rights Act
- 1993 not justiciable until State Government decides
- cause of action arises only upon acceptance and direction to implement
- Section 18 mandates government comments and publication
