STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SHRI GANPAT RAJ

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 12-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SHRI GANPAT RAJ 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Section 20: 
Retiral benefits-Delay in payment-Writ petition-High Court referring 
it to Lok Adalat--Lok Ada/at passing an award in favour of the employee- C 
Challenged by the employer-Dismissed by High Court~On appeal, Held: 
If no compromise or settlement arrived at in the mailer referred to Lok 
Ada/at, no order could be passed by it-Since the case did not involve 
compromise or settlement, it could not have been disposed of by the Lok 
Ada/at-Though, the High Court was right in holding that the disposal of D 
the case by the Lok Ada/at was nvt proper but it erred in affirming the order 
of the Lok Ada/at on merit-High Court ought to have directed restoration 
of the writ petition filed by the employee for disposal by itself-Civil Writ 
Petition restored to its original position for disposal by the High Court-· 
Directions issued. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Settlement' and 'compromise'-Meaning of in the context of Section 
20 of the Legtil Services Authorities Act, 1987. 
E 
Respondent-a retired employee filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High F 
Court for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the employer-appellants to 
pay interest@ 18% on delayed payment of pension, its arrears and other 
retirement benefits. The writ petition was sent to Lok Adalat for settlement, 
and it was allowed by the Lok Adalat awarding interest@ 12% chough no 
compromise arrived at between the parties. Against the award, a writ petition G 
was filed by the appellants before the High Court. The High Court held that 
i.. 
though the disposal by the Lok Ada lat was not the proper course, yet on merits 
responden• ·employee was entitled to relief. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-employee contended that the matter could not have been 
25 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A disposed of by the Lok Adalat in view of the specific provisions contained in 
Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The specific language used in sub-section (3) of the Legal 
B Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose 
ofa matter by way ofa compromise or ~ettlement between the parties. Two 
crucial terms in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 20 are "compromise" 
and "settlement". The former expression means settlement of differences 
by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of 
C connicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. 
[29-A-BI 
Re: NFU Development Trust Ltd., [197311 All ER 135, referred to. 
1.2. A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. 
"Settlement" is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. The 
D instant case did not involve compromise or settlement and could not have been 
disposed of by Lok Adlat. If no compromise or settlement is or could be 
arrived at, no order could be passed by the Lok Adalat Therefore, the disposal 
of the Civil Writ Petition by the Lok Adalat is clearly impermissible. The 
High Com1 ought to have directed restoration of the writ petition for disposal 
E in accordance with law. The Civil Writ Petition is restored to its original 
position for disposal by the High Court f 29-C-D; E; Ff · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4089 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2004 of the High Court of 
F Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 16246/2004. 
H.S. Munjral and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants. 
Brig, M.L. Khatter, Debasis Misra, Sunil Varma and Balraj Mallick for the 
Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
As noted by this Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Phu/an Rani 
and Anr., [2004] 7 SCC 555, a simple matter has unnecessarily been complicated 
H as a result of which there has been inordinate delay in disposing of the matter. 
' 
-
STATE Of PUNJABv. GANPATRAJ [PASA YAT, J.] 
27 
Respondent filed Civil Writ Petition no. 943 of 2000 in the Punjab and A 
Haryana High Court praying, infer alia, to issue a writ in the nature of 
mandamus directing the present appellants to pay interest @ 18% on delayed 
payment of pension, arrears of pension, DGRC, computation of pension and 
arrears ofGPF arrears and other retirement benefits. The writ petition was sent 
to Lok Adalat for settlement bei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.