Cwjc/11468/2019 Of M/S B. K. Construction v. The Bihar State Electric Power Holding Company Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11468 of 2019 ====================================================== M/s B. K. Construction through its Proprietor Shri Virdhesh Kumar Panditalias B.K. Pandit, aged about 49 years, Gender- Male, Son of Shri Gadu LalPandit, near Gas Godown, Ward No. 17, N.H. 57, Post Office and PoliceStation- Araria, District- Araria (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Bihar State Electric Power Holding Company Limited through its ChiefManaging Director, Vidyut Bhawan, near Income Tax Golamber, BailyRoad, Patna.Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, near Income Tax Golamber, BailyRoad, Patna. 2.The Chief Managing Director Electric Power Holding Company Limited,Vidyut Bhawan, near Income Tax Golamber, Baily Road, Patna.Vidyut Bhawan, near Income Tax Golamber, Baily Road, Patna. 3.The Secretary Electric Power Holding Company Limited Vidyut Bhawan,near Income Tax Golamber, Baily Road, Patna.near Income Tax Golamber, Baily Road, Patna. 4.The Engineer -in- Chief (Electrical) Electric Power Holding CompanyLimited, Vidyut Bhawan, near Income Tax Golamber, Baily Road, Patna.Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, near Income Tax Golamber, Baily Road, Patna. 5.The Electrical Superintending Engineer North Bihar, Electric Supply, PurneaCircle, Purnea.Circle, Purnea. 6.The Electrical Executive Engineer North Bihar Power Supply Division,Forbesganj, District- Araria.Forbesganj, District- Araria. 7.The Electrical Assistant Engineer North Bihar Electric Supply, Araria,District- Araria.District- Araria. 8.The Accounts Officer North Bihar Electric Power Supply Purnea, District-Purnea.Purnea. 9.The Accounts Officer North Bihar Electric Power Supply Forbesganj,District- Araria.District- Araria. 10.The Junior Electrical Engineer North Bihar Electric Power Supply, Araria,District- Araria.District- Araria. ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Rajendra Lal Das, AdvocateFor the Respondent/s: Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 29-11-2022 Petitioner has prayed for following relief (s) :- “(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs,order or orders, direction or directions to theconcerned respondents No.2 to 9 for the paymentof admitted due commission amount aboutRs.13,45,493.68/- (Rupees Thirteen Lac FourtyFive Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Three andSixty Eight Paise) only remained unpaid againstthe tender agreement during the work period rightfrom June, 2012 to October, 2013 with heavy penalinterest thereon to the petitioner. (B) For any other relief or reliefs to which thepetitioner is found entitled from the concernedrespondents.” Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that theinstant petition be disposed of exactly in the same terms ascontained in judgment dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Court inCivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13024 of 2022, titled asM/s.Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar &Ors. No objection to such prayer being allowed. The instant petition has been filed for a direction tothe respondents to make payment of admitted dues amount ofRs.13,45,493.68/- (approximately) for the work done as a Franchisee with respect to distribute the electricity bill to theultimate consumers, collect the revenue, attend the fuse-off calland minor LT & HT breakdown & other works as stipulatedunder Rural Area Franchisee Document & LOI. Petitioner maderepeated requests to several authorities. One such representationis dated 20.07.2017. There is no response to the petitioner’s request. The dispute still survives and petitioner’s request forclearance of dues remains pending No objection to such prayer being allowed. The instant petition has been filed for a direction tothe respondents to make payment of admitted dues amount ofRs.13,45,493.68/- (approximately) for the work done as a Franchisee with respect to distribute the electricity bill to theultimate consumers, collect the revenue, attend the fuse-off calland minor LT & HT breakdown & other works as stipulatedunder Rural Area Franchisee Document & LOI. Petitioner maderepeated requests to several authorities. One such representationis dated 20.07.2017. There is no response to the petitioner’s request. The dispute still survives and petitioner’s request forclearance of dues remains pending Well, without going into the merits of the issues, onall counts, the dispute could have been resolved in terms of theBihar State Litigation Policy, 2011. In M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution (Supra), We had passed the following observations and directions:- “5. We also notice that even in those caseswhere the parties are governed by the DisputeResolution Mechanism, provided in terms of theagreement(s) or statutes, parties are forced to litigateendlessly before different legal foras, be it this Courtor the statutory Tribunals. 6. We see no reason as to why the respondentState does not apply and take recourse to themechanism provided under its own policy termed asthe “Bihar State Litigation Policy,2011”. We also seeno reason as to why the respondent State does notresort to the provisions of Section 89 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908. 7. Unfortunately, parties are made to run frompillar to post, and as we have noticed, it is only where the officers of the State are interested, be it forwhatever reason and consideration, that case of fewfavoured individuals are settled and issues resolved,leaving the significant majority to litigate. 8. The instant case, in our considered view, isthe best example where the officers and the officialsof the State are found to have been lacking inadhering to the litigation policy, even worse,responding to the petitioner’s request made in termsof written communications. For the purposes ofsetting up a stall as part of Krishi Pradarshani, duringthe Sonepur Mela, petitioner’s services were availed.He erected a tent and submitted his bill for which onlypart payment was released. 9. Petitioner claims the outstanding amount to be Rs.21,67,056. The District Agriculture Officer,Saran, Chapra, the concerned officer, has alreadyforwarded favourably, request for release of theamount, to the higher authorities. This is videcommunication dated 17.08.2019. Unfortunately, thesuperior officers slept over the matter and despitepetitioner’s repeated request and reminders, and thelast one being on 01.07.2022 (Annexure-3), no actionstands taken, forcing initiation of current proceedings. 10. The Litigation Policy does state that- “1.1 (b) Responsible litigant means:a. That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating.”… … “1.2 This Policy is also based on the recognitionthat it is the responsibility of the Government to protectthe rights of the citizens, to respect fundamental rightsand that those in charge of the conduct of Governmentlitigation should never forget these basic principles.” “1.3 The twin underlying objective of this Policy is toreduce pressure on the overloaded judiciary and expeditedispensation of justice…” “IV.PREVENTION/CONTROL OF AVOIDABLELITIGATION A 4.A Setting up Grievance Redressal System 4.A ( 1). Very often the major causes of litigation 10. The Litigation Policy does state that- “1.1 (b) Responsible litigant means:a. That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating.”… … “1.2 This Policy is also based on the recognitionthat it is the responsibility of the Government to protectthe rights of the citizens, to respect fundamental rightsand that those in charge of the conduct of Governmentlitigation should never forget these basic principles.” “1.3 The twin underlying objective of this Policy is toreduce pressure on the overloaded judiciary and expeditedispensation of justice…” “IV.PREVENTION/CONTROL OF AVOIDABLELITIGATION A 4.A Setting up Grievance Redressal System 4.A ( 1). Very often the major causes of litigation involving the State Government are from arbitrariness indecision making or non application of mind or non-response/ improper response to representations made byemployees, including retired employees/ parties. It is seenthat in most cases in respect of service matters the causeof action arises out of relief not being given as per theRules, Government instructions or policy decisions as arein force. It is also seen that in most cases before thematter reaches the Court the affected party undeservedlyspends a lot of his time and effort over redressal of hisgrievance through normal administrative channels. In thissituation all Departments of the State Government shallset up effective Grievance Redressal Committees in order-to preempt a large number of avoidable litigation. 4. A(2). It shall be mandatory for employees, includingthose retired, to seek redressal, at the first instance,through this system before approaching the Courts. 4. A(3). A time limit of eight weeks or so may be fixedfor deciding such representations. 4. A(4). Such Grievance Redressal Committees shallbe set up in each Department at the State Level, DistrictLevel and Sub-Divisional Level and each of them shallhave a Grievance Cell. All cases and issues at the requestof the aggrieved party shall be reviewed to redressgenuine grievances. 4. A(5) The Department Level Grievance Committeeshall be headed by the Principal Secretary/ Secretary ofthe Department concerned and shall meet once a monthto review the efficiency of the Grievance RedressalSystem in the Department. Similarly at the District andSub-Divisional Level, the Committee shall be headed bythe District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Officer, as thecase may be. The District Sub Divisional LevelGrievance Redressal Committees shall meet once everymonth on the first Tuesday of each month; if this is aholiday, the Committee will meet on the next workingday excluding "Janata ka Darbar" days, i.e., Mondays andThursdays. Where it is found that certain Governmentinstructions require to be reviewed, it shall refer the sameto the State Level Empowered Committee. As senioritymatters are a major source of litigations these shall beresolved expeditiously by the Department and senioritylists should be updated, printed and published regularly.” “4.B. Quick Action on Representations/ LegalNotices 4.B(1). A legal notice is intended to alert the State to negotiate a just settlement or at least have the courtesy totell the potential outsider why the claim is being resisted.Nowadays such notices have become a formality. Whensuch a legal notice is served upon any Department askingfor the relief the same should be decided expeditiously inaccordance with the prevalent Rules/ Instructions and bya detailed speaking order. Timely response would avoidwaste of public money and promote expeditious work inCourt in cases which deserve to be attended to.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Though in relation to a Government employee, but inreference to the Litigation Policy, in LPA No.1322 of 2018titled as The District Manager, Bihar State Food and CivilSupplies Corporation Ltd. Begusarai v. Anuradha Devi &Ors. disposed of on 01.02.2022, we had issued the followingdirections:- (Emphasis supplied) 11. Though in relation to a Government employee, but inreference to the Litigation Policy, in LPA No.1322 of 2018titled as The District Manager, Bihar State Food and CivilSupplies Corporation Ltd. Begusarai v. Anuradha Devi &Ors. disposed of on 01.02.2022, we had issued the followingdirections:- “17. We notice that State has formulated aLitigation Policy with the avowed object of not onlyreducing litigation, saving avoidable cost onunproductive litigation, reducing avoidable load onjudiciary with respect to Government inducedlitigation. This is in tune with the mandate of Article39-A of the Constitution of India, obligating the Stateto promote equal justice and provide free legal aid. Infact, by virtue of the clauses of the State LitigationPolicy, the State is under an obligation to take steps toreduce litigation, wherever possible. Now, if theemployees are not paid their dues within time,obviously, they are left with no remedy but to rush tothe Courts. 18. Of late, litigation pertaining to employees of theState has increased more so on account of illegalactions. The action assailed is of mis-governance oravoidable omissions on the part of the Government.Why should the State force an employee/legal heir tolitigate in a case where emoluments, which areundisputed, are not disbursed in time. Anemployee/legal heir has a constitutional right toreceive the same within time, so also State is under aconstitutional obligation and duty to disburse it withintime. 19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, wedispose of the appeal in the following manner:- (a)The present Appeal stands dismissed upholding the the judgment and order dated25.06.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of thisCourt in CWJC No.11609 of 2014 titled asAnuradha Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. (b) The appellant shall positively pay the entireamount in terms of the impugned judgment to the writpetitioner, namely Anuradha Devi, within a period ofthree weeks from today, failing which she shall beentitled to interest @ 12% per annum. Appellant shallensure the same, else the amount of interest shall berecovered from his salary. Affidavit of complianceshall be filed within two months from today. (c) Joint Registrar (List) shall ensure supply copyof this order to all concerned. For compliance, matterbe placed before the Court on 05.05.2022. (d) The Chief Secretary to the Government ofBihar, shall ensure providing a mechanism, enabling-the employees to vent out their grievances of nondisbursementofdueandadmissiblewages/salaries/emoluments. One such mechanismbeing of setting up a ‘Web Portal’ at the level of thePrincipal Secretary/ Secretary of the concernedDepartment(s), where the employees can lodge theirgrievances/complaints. Such grievances/ complaintsshall be processed and adequately responded to withina period of reasonable period. This would facilitatespeedy redressal of genuine grievances and preventunnecessary litigation, clogging the wheels ofadministration of justice. Such endeavour shall onlybe in the spirit of Litigation Policy, framed by theState Government. We see great advantage in the useof information and technology. Not only it wouldresult into effective and efficient redressal ofgrievances, if any, but also improve efficiency in theaffairs of governance of the State, further instillingconfidence and trust amongst the employees. (e) Non disbursement of monetary benefits,except in the event of the dictum of law would entailconsequences of recovery of the amount of interestfrom the delinquent officer incharge for suchdisbursement.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to dispose of the present petition with the followingdirection(s):- (e) Non disbursement of monetary benefits,except in the event of the dictum of law would entailconsequences of recovery of the amount of interestfrom the delinquent officer incharge for suchdisbursement.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to dispose of the present petition with the followingdirection(s):- (a) The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, shallissue appropriate directions to the heads of alltheconcerneddepartmentsensuringexpeditious, consideration of the claims/counterclaims set up by the parties, including that ofthe State; disposal of requests/representations;and disbursement of money undisputedly founddue and payable; (b) The person empowered and authorized to takesuch a decision be directed to have the needfuldone within a reasonable period whichnormally, unless the laws otherwise prescribes,should not be more than six months from thedate of receipt of such claim; such a decision be directed to have the needfuldone within a reasonable period whichnormally, unless the laws otherwise prescribes,should not be more than six months from thedate of receipt of such claim; (c) In the event of the authority concerned sittingover the matter or not taking any action,appropriate action be taken/proceedingsinitiated against such person;over the matter or not taking any action,appropriate action be taken/proceedingsinitiated against such person; (d) In so far as the instant case is concerned, Respondent No. 2, namely, the PrincipalSecretary, Agriculture Department, Governmentof Bihar, Patna, is directed to have thepetitioner’s case examined and ensure earlydecision and disbursement of petitioner’slegitimate dues payable under the work order.This, positively be done within a period of twomonths from today.Secretary, Agriculture Department, Governmentof Bihar, Patna, is directed to have thepetitioner’s case examined and ensure earlydecision and disbursement of petitioner’slegitimate dues payable under the work order.This, positively be done within a period of twomonths from today. 13. We may clarify that in the instant case, we have not adjudicated the claims on merits and leave itopen for the authority concerned to take a decision inaccordance with law.” As mutually agreed, the instant petition stands disposed of in terms of judgment passed by this Court in M/s.Raghoji House of Distribution (Supra) and the directionscontained therein shall also govern the instant case mutatismutandi, to the extent possible. In so far as the instant case is concerned, (i) Respondent No.5, namely, the ElectricalSuperintending Engineer North Bihar, Electric Supply, PurneaCircle, Purnea is directed to have the petitioner’s case examinedand ensure early decision and disbursement of petitioner’slegitimate dues payable, if any, under the work order, as alsoconsideration of all claims. This, positively be done within aperiod of two months from today, failing which costs ofRs.5,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner to be recovered fromthe personal salary of the officer concerned. (ii) Respondent No.1, namely, the Bihar State ElectricPower Holding Company Limited through its Chief ManagingDirector, Vidyut Bhawan shall ensure putting in place effectivemechanism for grievance redressal. This must also be done on adigital platform. Also the general public be informed ofavailability and functioning of such mechanism. (iii) Failure would result into initiation of proceedingsfor having deliberately violated the order and consequential action of stoppage of salary of the concerned officer. (iv) All issues, on merit, facts and law, are left open tobe decided by the decision making authority. However, suchdecision has to be in compliance of all principles of naturaljustice. (v) Liberty reserved to the parties to initiate a freshaction, should the need so arise. (ii) Respondent No.1, namely, the Bihar State ElectricPower Holding Company Limited through its Chief ManagingDirector, Vidyut Bhawan shall ensure putting in place effectivemechanism for grievance redressal. This must also be done on adigital platform. Also the general public be informed ofavailability and functioning of such mechanism. (iii) Failure would result into initiation of proceedingsfor having deliberately violated the order and consequential action of stoppage of salary of the concerned officer. (iv) All issues, on merit, facts and law, are left open tobe decided by the decision making authority. However, suchdecision has to be in compliance of all principles of naturaljustice. (v) Liberty reserved to the parties to initiate a freshaction, should the need so arise. (vi) The Respondent No.1, namely, the Bihar StateElectric Power Holding Company Limited through its ChiefManaging Director, Vidyut Bhawan shall file an affidavit ofcompliance of the order within a period of three months fromtoday and on failure, Registry shall place the file on the judicialside. (vii) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of theBihar State Power Holding Company Limited undertakes toimmediately communicate a copy of this order, both toRespondent No.1, namely, the Bihar State Electric PowerHolding Company Limited through its Chief ManagingDirector, Vidyut Bhawan and Respondent No.5, namely, theElectrical Superintending Engineer North Bihar, ElectricSupply, Purnea Circle, Purnea. This he shall do by all modes. Writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) Ashwini/Sujit AFR/NAFRCAV DATEUploading Date30.11.2022Transmission Date ( Partha Sarthy, J)