Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondents for refund of the fees and expenses incurred by her in her education in pursuance of the Government Scheme ‘Jyoti Yojna’ (‘the Scheme’), Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., opined that the respondents’ action in not providing the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner and similarly placed persons, was quite arbitrary, unreasonable and amounted to gross abuse of the power and violation of the principle of natural justice and the same was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to provide the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner and refund/reimburse her educational fees and other expenses incurred in her education with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition. The Court further issued a general mandamus to the respondents and the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan to constitute a committee headed by the Secretary, Department Medical and Health to provide the benefits of the Scheme to each and every individual, who had one or two girl child and underwent sterilization, in pursuance of the Scheme.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner submitted that on 19-08-2011, a circular was issued by the Department of Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which a beneficiary Scheme ‘Jyoti Yojna’ (‘the Scheme’) was introduced for granting benefits and empowering those females who gave birth to one or two girl child and afterwards, voluntarily underwent the process of sterilization. Subsequently, the petitioner relied upon the Scheme, and underwent the process of sterilization after giving birth to a girl child for seeking the benefit of the Scheme. The petitioner submitted that after birth of the girl child, she undertook the studies of Secondary, Senior Secondary and GNM Course wherein she incurred several expenses towards her education, however, the respondents failed to provide the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner.
Thus, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The respondent stated that the Scheme was closed by the respondent-State in 2016 and the petitioner was informed accordingly by way of issuing UTI bond in the name of the petitioner’s daughter. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to get the relief, as sought in the present writ petition.
The issue for consideration before the Court was, whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of fees and expenses, incurred and borne towards her studies from Class-X to GNM Course, in terms of the Circular dated 19-08-2011 issued in pursuance of the Scheme.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the principle of legitimate expectations dictated that individuals had a reasonable expectation that public authorities would honour their commitments and promises made through official channels. In the present case, after relying on the Government’s assurances outlined in the Scheme, the petitioner after giving birth to the girl child underwent sterilization. Thus, the scheme created a legitimate expectation that the Government would fulfil its obligations, including covering education expenses, medical costs and providing employment preferences in nursing rolls.
Further, the Court opined that the principle of estoppel prevented a party from going back on its word when another party had reasonably relied on that promise to their detriment, and in the present case, by undergoing sterilization and making life decisions based on the promises of the Scheme, the petitioner altered her circumstances significantly. The Court opined that to backtrack on these commitments now would be unfair and would also undermine the trust and confidence that citizens place in Government programs and policies.
The Court opined that both the principle of legitimate expectation and the principle of estoppel weighed heavily in favour of upholding the Government’s promises under the Scheme, and to do otherwise would not only be legally questionable but would also be morally unjust. As such, it was imperative for the Government to honour its commitments and fulfil its obligations under the program to maintain integrity and accountability in governance.
The Court opined that the doctrine of legitimate expectation belonged to the domain of public law and was intended to give relief to the people when they were not able to justify their claims on the basis of law, even though they had suffered a civil consequence because their legitimate expectation been violated. Further, when an expectation arose from the express promise then such applicant could reasonably expect from the Court or the public authority to protect his/her expectation by invoking the principle similar to natural justice a ‘fair play in action’.
The Court after perusal of the facts on the instant case opined that the respondents’ action in not providing the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner and similarly placed persons, was quite arbitrary, unreasonable and amounted to gross abuse of the power and violation of the principle of natural justice and the same was not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Court opined that such action of the respondents amounted to breach of promise and violation of the doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’ and principle of ‘promissory estoppel’. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to provide the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner and refund/reimburse her educational fees and other expenses incurred in her education with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition.
The Court further issued a general mandamus to the respondents and the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan to constitute a Committee headed by the Secretary, Department Medical and Health to provide the benefits of the Scheme to each and every individual, who had one or two girl child and underwent sterilization, in pursuance of the Scheme, after scrutiny of the pending claims and applications of the desired persons. The Court stated that this needful exercise would be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.
[Vandana v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 324, Order dated 12-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Intjar Ali, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Bharat Saini, Additional Government Counsel
