Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i. For issuance of direction to the respondent au-thorities to clear the admitted dues / payment of the petitioner with respect to maintenance of the
road arising out of Agreement No. 22 SBD/2016-17 dated 17.02.2017.
ii. The petitioner further prays for issuance of di-rection to respondent authorities to release the security deposit of Rs. 9 Lacs.
Iii. For any other relief for which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to.â€
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the instant petition be disposed of exactly in the same terms as contained in judgment dated 14.09.2022
passed by this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13024 of 2022, titled as M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
No objection to such prayer being allowed.
In the instant case, petitioner seeks to release the se-curity deposit of Rs. 9 lacs with respect to maintenance of the road arising out of agreement
No.22SBD/2016-17 dated 17.2.2017.
There is no response to the petitioner’s request.
The dispute still survives and petitioner’s request for clearance of dues remains pending.
Well, without going into the merits of the issues, on all counts, the dispute could have been resolved in terms of the Bihar 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 cases where the parties are governed by the Dispute Resolu-tion Mechanism, provided in terms of the
agreement(s) or statutes, parties are forced to litigate endlessly before different legal foras, be it this Court or the statutory Tribunals.
6. We see no reason as to why the respondent State does not apply and take recourse to the mecha-nism provided under its own policy termed as the
“Bi-har State Litigation Policy,2011â€. We also see no reason as to why the respondent State does not resort to the provisions of Section 89 of the
Code of Civil Pro-cedure, 1908.
7. Unfortunately, parties are made to run from pillar to post, and as we have noticed, it is only where the officers of the State are interested, be it for
what-ever reason and consideration, that case of few favoured individuals are settled and issues resolved, leaving the significant majority to litigate.
8. The instant case, in our considered view, is the best example where the officers and the officials of the State are found to have been lacking in
adher-ing to the litigation policy, even worse, responding to the petitioner’s request made in terms of written com-munications. For the purposes of
setting up a stall as part of Krishi Pradarshani, during the Sonepur Mela, petitioner’s services were availed. He erected a tent and submitted his
bill for which only part 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 already
for-warded favourably, request for release of the amount, to the higher authorities. This is vide communication dated 17.08.2019. Unfortunately, the
superior officers slept over the matter and despite petitioner’s repeated request and reminders, and the last one being on 01.07.2022 (Annexure-3),
no action stands 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.â€â€¦
… “1.2 This Policy is also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of the citizens, to respect
fundamental rights and that those in charge of the conduct of Government lit-igation should never forget these basic principles.â€
“1.3 The twin underlying objective of this Policy is to reduce pressure on the overloaded judiciary and expedite dispensation of justice…â€
“IV.PREVENTION/CONTROL OF AVOIDABLE LITIGATION
A
4.A Setting up Grievance Redressal System
4.A ( 1). Very often the major causes of litigation in-volving the State Government are from arbitrariness in decision making or non application of mind
or non-re-sponse/ improper response to representations made by employees, including retired employees/ parties. It is seen that in most cases in
respect of service matters the cause of action arises out of relief not being given as per the Rules, Government instructions or policy decisions as are
in force. It is also seen that in most cases before the mat-ter reaches the Court the affected party undeservedly spends a lot of his time and effort
over redressal of his grievance through normal administrative channels. In this situation all Departments of the State Government shall set up effective
Grievance Redressal Committees in order to pre-empt a large number of avoidable litigation.
4. A(2). It shall be mandatory for employees, including those 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 fixed for deciding such representations.
4. A(4). Such Grievance Redressal Committees shall be set up in each Department at the State Level, District Level and Sub-Divisional Level and
each of them shall have a Grievance Cell. All cases and issues at the request of the aggrieved party shall be reviewed to redress gen-uine grievances.
4. A(5) The Department Level Grievance Committee shall be headed by the Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the Department concerned and shall
meet once a month to review the efficiency of the Grievance Redressal Sys-tem in the Department. Similarly at the District and Sub-Divisional Level,
the Committee shall be headed by the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Officer, as the case may be. The District Sub Divisional Level Grievance
Re-dressal Committees shall meet once every month on the first Tuesday of each month; if this is a holiday, the Com-mittee will meet on the next
working day excluding ""Janata ka Darbar"" days, i.e., Mondays and Thursdays. Where it is found that certain Government instructions require to be
reviewed, it shall refer the same to the State Level Empowered Committee. As seniority matters are a major source of litigations these shall be
resolved expedi-tiously by the Department and seniority lists should be updated, printed and published regularly.â€
“4.B. Quick Action on Representations/ Legal No-tices
4.B(1). A legal notice is intended to alert the State to negotiate a just settlement or at least have the courtesy to tell the potential outsider why the
claim is being resisted. Nowadays such notices have become a formality. When such a legal notice is served upon any Department asking for the
relief the same should be decided expeditiously in accordance with the prevalent Rules/ Instructions and by a detailed speaking order. Timely response
would avoid waste of public money and promote expeditious work in Court in cases which deserve to be attended to.â€
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Though in relation to a Government employee, but in reference to the Litigation Policy, in LPA No.1322 of 2018 ti-tled as The District Manager,
Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Begusarai v. Anuradha Devi & Ors. disposed of on 01.02.2022, we had issued the following
directions:-
“17. We notice that State has formulated a Litiga-tion Policy with the avowed object of not only reduc-ing litigation, saving avoidable cost on
unproductive litigation, reducing avoidable load on judiciary with re-spect to Government induced litigation. This is in tune with the mandate of Article
39-A of the Constitution of India, obligating the State to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid. In fact, by virtue of the clauses of the State
Litigation Policy, the State is under an obligation to take steps to reduce litigation, wherever possible. Now, if the employees are not paid their dues
within time, obviously, they are left with no remedy but to rush to the Courts.
18. Of late, litigation pertaining to employees of the State has increased more so on account of illegal ac-tions. The action assailed is of mis-
governance or avoidable omissions on the part of the Government. Why should the State force an employee/legal heir to litigate in a case where
emoluments, which are undis-puted, are not disbursed in time. An employee/legal heir has a constitutional right to receive the same within time, so also
State is under a constitutional obligation and duty to disburse it within time.
19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we dis-pose of the appeal in the following manner:-
(a) The present Appeal stands dismissed uphold-ing the the judgment and order dated 25.06.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
CWJC No.11609 of 2014 titled as Anuradha Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.
(b) The appellant shall positively pay the entire amount in terms of the impugned judgment to the writ petitioner, namely Anuradha Devi, within a
period of three weeks from today, failing which she shall be en-titled to interest @ 12% per annum. Appellant shall ensure the same, else the amount
of interest shall be recovered from his salary. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two months from today.
(c) Joint Registrar (List) shall ensure supply copy of this order to all concerned. For compliance, matter be placed before the Court on 05.05.2022.
(d) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, shall ensure providing a mechanism, enabling the employees to vent out their grievances of non-
dis-bursement of due and admissible wages/salaries/emol-uments. One such mechanism being of setting up a ‘Web Portal’ at the level of the
Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the concerned Department(s), where the employees can lodge their grievances/complaints. Such grievances/
complaints shall be processed and adequately responded to within a period of reasonable period. This would facilitate speedy redressal of gen-uine
grievances and prevent unnecessary litigation, clogging the wheels of administration of justice. Such endeavour shall only be in the spirit of Litigation
Pol-icy, framed by the State Government. We see great ad-vantage in the use of information and technology. Not only it would result into effective
and efficient redres-sal of grievances, if any, but also improve efficiency in the affairs of governance of the State, further in-stilling confidence and
trust amongst the employees.
(e) Non disbursement of monetary benefits, ex-cept in the event of the dictum of law would entail consequences of recovery of the amount of interest
from the delinquent officer incharge for such dis-bursement.â€
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to dispose of the present petition with the following di-rection(s):-
(a) The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, shall issue appropriate directions to the heads of all the concerned departments ensuring expedi-tious,
consideration of the claims/counter claims set up by the parties, including that of the State; disposal of requests/representations; and dis-bursement of
money undisputedly found due and payable;
(b) The person empowered and authorized to take such a decision be directed to have the needful done within a reasonable period which nor-mally,
unless the laws otherwise prescribes, should not be more than six months from the date of receipt of such claim;
(c) In the event of the authority concerned sitting over the matter or not taking any action, appro-priate action be taken/proceedings initiated against
such person;
(d) In so far as the instant case is concerned, Respondent No. 2, namely, the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna, is directed to have the petitioner’s case examined and ensure early decision and dis-bursement of petitioner’s legitimate dues payable
under the work order. This, positively be done within a period of two months from to-day.
13. We may clarify that in the instant case, we have not adjudicated the claims on merits and leave it open for the authority concerned to take a
decision in accordance with law.â€
As mutually agreed, the instant petition stands dis-posed of in terms of judgment passed by this Court in M/s. Raghoji House of Distribution (Supra)
and the directions contained therein shall also govern the instant case mutatis mu-tandi, to the extent possible.
In so far as the instant case is concerned,
(i) Respondent No.5, namely, the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Biraul is directed to have the petitioner’s case
examined and ensure early decision and disbursement of petitioner’s legitimate dues payable, if any, under the scheme, as also consideration of all
claims. This, pos-itively be done within a period of two months from today, fail-ing which costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner to be
recovered from the personal salary of the officer concerned.
(ii) Respondent No.1, namely, the State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Depart-ment, Bihar, Patna, shall ensure putting
in place effective mech-anism for grievance redressal. This must also be done on a digi-tal platform. Also the general public be informed of availability
and functioning of such mechanism.
(iii) Failure would result into initiation of proceedings for 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 to be decided by the decision making authority. However, such de-cision has to be in compliance
of all principles of natural jus-tice.
(v) Liberty reserved to the parties to initiate a fresh action, should the need so arise.
(vi) Respondent No.5, namely, the Executive Engi-neer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Biraul shall file an affidavit of compliance of the
order within a period of three months from today and on failure, Registry shall place the file on the judicial side.
(vii) Sri Ajay, G.A. 5, appearing for the State, under-takes to immediately communicate a copy of this order, both to Respondent No.1, namely, the
State of Bihar through the Addi-tional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna, and Respondent No.5, namely, the Executive
Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Biraul. 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.