STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus PHULAN RANI AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 03-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PHULAN RANI AND ANR. 
AUGUST 3, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K.THAKKER, JJ.] 
·B 
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987-Section 20(3) and (5)-Lok 
Ada/at-Jurisdiction of-Matter regarding grant of pension-Disposal by 
Lok Ada/at-Permissibility of-Held : Lok Ada lat can dispose of a matter 
by way of compromise or settlement-Case not involving question of C 
compromise or settlement, could not have been disposed of by Lok Adalat. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Compromise" and 'Settlement '-Meaning of in the context of Section D 
20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 
Respondent No. 1 claimed pension on demise of her husband. The 
same being rejected, she filed Writ Petition before High Court. The 
petition was transferred to Lok Adalat and the case was disposed of 
in favour of respondenf No. I. The review application of the State E 
challenging the disposal of the case by Lok Ada lat was rejected. Hence 
the State filed Writ Petition challenging the legality of disposal by Lok 
Adalat. High Court held that though disposal by Lok Adalat was not 
proper course, respondent No. 1 was entitled for the relief on merits. 
In appeal to this Court appellant State contended that in view of 
specific provisions contained in Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities 
Act, 1987, the matter could not have been disposed of by Lok Adalat. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 
F 
G 
20 of Legal services Authorities Act, 1987 makes it clear that the Lok 
Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement 
between the parties. The present case did not involve compromise or 
settlement and could not have been disposed of by Lok Adalat. If no H 
303 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be 
passed by the Lok Ada lat. Therefore, the disposal of the Writ Petition 
filed by respondent No. 1 is impermissible. Hence, High Court ought 
to have directed restoration of Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 
1 for disposal in accordance with law. Since the matter relating to 
B pension is pending for long. Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 is 
restored to its original position. (307-D-E; 307-F-G] 
2. The expression 'compromise' means settlement of differences 
by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of 
conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. 
C The word "compromise" implies some element of accommodation on 
each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender. "Settlement" is 
termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. (307-E-F] 
Re; NFU Development Trust Ltd., (1973) 1 All ER 135 (Ch. D), 
D referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.2003 of the Punjab and 
E Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4708 of 2002. 
Sarup Singh, Sr. A.A.G and R.S. Ruri for the Appellants. 
S.D. Shanna, Satinder S. Gulati, Dr. Kailash Chand and Balbir Singh 
F Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. 
A simple matter has unnecessarily been complicated as a result of 
G which there has been inordinate delay in disposing of the matter. 
A writ petition No. 13555/1994 was filed by respondent No. I Phulan 
Rani. She had claimed pension payable after demise of her husband who 
was employed as a Tubewell operator. The services of late Mohinder 
H Singh Walia were terminated some time in the year 1983 on the ground 
·< 
STATE v. PHULAN RANI [PASAYAT, J.] 
305 
that Tubewells Punjab Irrigation Department was transferred to the Punjab A 
St~te Tubewell Corporation (respondent No. 2 herein). However, the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana directed .re-appointment of late Mohinder 
Singh Walia ,and consequentially he was absorbed in the Punjab State 
Tubeweq Corporation. According to Phulan Devi, her husband died on 
18.12.1992 after ,retirement in 1989. The claim of pension having -been B 
rejected by the Corporation and the State, she filed a Civil Writ Petition 
. l'jo.)3555/94 which came.to be disposed of by Lok Adalat on 18.1.2000. 
1 The ,State of Punjab filed a review application taking the stand that it was 
.uot, properly, represented in the proceedings. In any event, there· being 
,,qispute about entitlement of the pension, the writ petition could not have C 
been disposed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.