Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sameer Jain, J., opined that the State had the inherent task of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State employees or otherwise. The Court opined that the State was obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in the aggrieved-employees’ favour. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfil was providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which might or might not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. Thus, the Court directed Chief Secretary for the State to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities for considering the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous litigation was cut-down before the courts, which were already exceedingly over-burdened. The Court also directed the respondent-State to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23-08-2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order, in compliance with the principles of natural justice within a period of thirty days.
Background
In the present case, the order of suspension was passed on 24-02-2023, against the petitioner by the Department of Personnel, Rajasthan. It was stated that on 23-08-2023, the petitioner filed a detailed representation before the respondents for revocation of suspension and reinstatement in service with all the consequential benefits. However, the respondents paid no heed to the representation, and as a result, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The petitioner also stated that it had become a regular practice of the State to lend a deaf ear to the representations preferred by the aggrieved parties, thereby leaving them with no option, but to knock at the doors of this Court at the very instance. Also, the said practice further detonated the financial health of the already aggrieved litigants, as they were born with the cost of litigation.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the State, by constitution and practice was a welfare state and whilst exercising governance over its citizens, it was expected to protect and promote the citizen’s social and economic well-being, and with this duty, came the inherent task of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State employees or otherwise.
The Court noted that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court employed a discretionary approach, where in the presence of an alternate and efficacious remedy, the Courts often considered delegating the dispute to the alternate authority. Consequently, in service matters, the primary expert was the State itself. Therefore, the Court opined that by diligently addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State could very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially.
The Court opined that the State was obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfil was providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which might or might not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. Even if a fraction of the grievances were resolved, wherein cost was born by the State exchequer and the litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts where the State was a party should reduce immensely.
The Court opined that, even otherwise, the State must take-away or embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders. The Court opined that rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, reflected the conduct which was unbecoming of the government servants, who were tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State should not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extended the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also, the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs.
Thus, the Court directed Chief Secretary for the State to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities for considering the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous litigation was cut-down before the courts, which were already exceedingly over-burdened. The Court also directed the respondent-State to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23-08-2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order, in compliance with the principles of natural justice within a period of thirty days.
The matter would next be listed on 04-03-2024 for observing compliance.
[Pawan Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 282, Order dated 02-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Ajay Rajawat for S.S. Raghav, AAG.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
