State Can Reduce Litigation By Addressing Grievances Of Employees By Acting As First Responders: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court held that the State can do itself a favour and reduce the litigation substantially by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by aggrieved employees by acting as first responders.
The Court remarked that although a State was not under the responsibility to address the representations positively, it could provide an ear to their grievance and pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Court stated that “the State must take-away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders, passed in response to the representations so preferred by them.”
An order of suspension was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation for the revocation of suspension and reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. However, no heed was paid to the said representation and as a result, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The petitioner had argued that it has become a regular practice of the State to lend a deaf ear to the representations preferred by the aggrieved parties, thereby leaving them with no option, but to knock at the doors of Courts at every instance.
A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, “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.”
Advocate Kashish Gupta represented the petitioner, while Advocate Advait Sethna appeared for the respondents.
The Court noted the discretionary powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and held that 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, the Court remarked that the primary expert or the body possessing the complete acumen regarding the issue in service matters is the State itself and then the State becomes a party to the litigation before the Court.
The Court considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner and remarked that “With the aforementioned duty, comes the inherent task of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State employees or otherwise.”
The Court held that even if a fraction of the grievances were resolved by careful consideration of the representations received by the State, then the cost born by the State exchequer and the litigating employees would reduce immensely.
Subsequently, the Court directed the Chief Secretary for the State issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties so that frivolous litigation could be cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Pawan Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (2024:RJ-JP:5792)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
Respondents: AAG S.S. Raghav and Advocate Ajay Rajawat
