2024 (2) TMI 1519 - HC - Indian Laws

Representation filed before the respondents for the revocation of suspension and reinstatement in service - State s failure to consider representations from aggrieved parties before resorting to litigation - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court deems it appropriate to note that the State by constitution as well as practice is a welfare-state. The State whilst exercising governance over it s citizens is expected to protect and promote the citizen s social and economic well-being based on the ideals of equal and due opportunity and public responsibility for citizens who find it difficult and/or are unable to bare the necessities of life. It is noted that the writ court whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India employs a discretionary approach where in the presence of an alternate and efficacious remedy the Courts often ponder in delegating the dispute to the said alternate authority better equipped with experts or otherwise to entertain the dispute. Resultantly in service matters the primary expert and/or the body possessing the complete acumen regarding the issue is the State itself being one of the parties to the litigation before the Court. By assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather the only requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their grievance and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice which may or may not address the aggrieved employee s concerns to their liking. However by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating employees the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely. Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts. Conclusion - The respondent-State is directed to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23.08.2023 and thereafter pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is expected that the principles of natural justice shall be adhered with. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the State's failure to consider representations from aggrieved parties before resorting to litigation is justifiable.2. Whether the State has a duty to act as the 'first-responders' to grievances raised by its citizens, especially in service matters.3. Whether the State should make genuine attempts to redress employee grievances through speaking orders in compliance with principles of natural justice.4. Whether non-consideration of representations by the State reflects poorly on government servants' responsibilities to serve citizens and maintain their confidence.The Court considered the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel regarding the State's practice of ignoring representations from aggrieved parties, leading them to resort to litigation. The Court emphasized the State's role as a welfare state and its duty to protect and promote citizens' well-being. It highlighted the importance of the State being responsive to grievances and acting as 'first-responders' to address issues before they escalate into litigation.The Court also discussed the discretionary approach taken in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, where alternate remedies are considered before court intervention. However, in service matters, the State is seen as the primary expert in resolving disputes due to its expertise and involvement in the issue.Furthermore, the Court emphasized the need for the State to consider representations from aggrieved employees and issue speaking orders in response. It stressed that even if not all grievances are fully resolved, the State's consideration of representations can significantly reduce litigation costs and burden on the courts.As a result, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to instruct State instrumentalities to consider representations and dispose of them through speaking orders to minimize frivolous litigation. In the specific case at hand, the respondent-State was directed to pay attention to the petitioner's representation and issue a speaking order within 30 days, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.The significant holdings of the judgment include:- The State's duty to act as 'first-responders' to grievances raised by citizens.- The importance of the State considering representations from aggrieved parties to reduce litigation costs and burden on the courts.- The directive for the State to issue speaking orders in response to employee grievances to uphold principles of natural justice.In conclusion, the Court emphasized the State's responsibility to address grievances promptly and efficiently to prevent unnecessary litigation and promote social and economic well-being.