Permanent Lok Adalat Has No Jurisdiction Over Service Matters: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Award Granting Benefits From 1978
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) in dispute relating to service benefits, opining that the jurisdiction of PLA could only be invoked for redressal of grievances that dealt with “public utility services” as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the “Act”).The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was...
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) in dispute relating to service benefits, opining that the jurisdiction of PLA could only be invoked for redressal of grievances that dealt with “public utility services” as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the “Act”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing challenge against an order passed by the PLA, Merta, Nagaur, in which the Public Heath Engineering Department was directed to grant service benefits to the respondent since the initial date of his appointment.
The respondent was appointed as a Helper on temporary basis in 1978, and in 1980 he was declared as a semi-permanent employee. However, for the purpose of all the service benefits, his services were counted only from September 1981. Hence, he approached the PLA.
It was the case of the petitioner-department, that not only the application was allowed by the PLA, but it was also decided in the respondent's favour. While challenging the maintainability of the application, the petitioner argued that since the issued related to grant of service benefits to the respondent, it could not have been dealt with by the PLA.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the relevant provisions on the Act, including Section 22A and observed that,
“…clear that the purpose of establishing the Permanent Lok Adalat is to exercise limited jurisdiction over one or more public utility services and not otherwise. The types of Public Utility Services have been enumerated with the power to the Central Government or the State Government to expand the definition of Public Utility Service to include any other services. The words "any party to a dispute" under Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 must be interpreted in the context of the jurisdiction for which the Permanent Lok Adalat has been established.”
In this background, the Court held that since the present matter pertained to grant of service benefits to the respondent, it did not fall under the purview of “public utility services” as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act. Hence, the PLA did not have any jurisdiction and exercised power which was not vested in it.
Accordingly, the order was quashed with liberty to the respondent to file representation before the petitioner-department.
The petitioner was instructed to hear and decide the matter sympathetically and expeditiously, preferably within 2 months.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhanwar Lal Jain
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 383