*State Litigation Policy being violated by top brass
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, June 9: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur today scolded the Chief Secretary and Secretary of General Administration Department for disrespecting the court orders and said that the State Litigation Policy was being violated by none else than top brass of the State’s bureaucracy. Creating further embarrassment for the State, the Division Bench directed the Chief Secretary to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to the petitioner, an officer of J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service, for not implementing the orders for five years.
The petitioner Iftikhar Hussain successfully participated in the Combined Services Competitive Examinations in 1995 and was shown at Serial No.243 in the order of merit in the select list prepared in the year 1999. Accordingly, he was allotted J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service.
Aggrieved over the allotment of Accounts Service, which figured at Serial No.10 in the order of preference indicated by him in his application, he approached the court of law with the prayer that having regard to his merit position he deserved to be allotted J&K Administrative Service.
On his writ petition, the High Court quashed the order No.515-GAD of 2000 dated May 8, 2000 whereby the petitioner was allotted J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service and respondents were directed to reexamine the issue of allocation of service in respect of petitioner. However, the State aggrieved with the Writ Court judgment came up with LPA.
On December 23, 2009, Division Bench decided the LPA giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the State Government within one month and directing the State Government to decide the representation within a period of three months. In compliance to the judgment, the petitioner made a representation detailing his grievance to the State Government within one month of the date of judgment. But the respondents failed to take any decision.
This led to filing of Contempt Petition and DB on May 19, 2015, gave two weeks last and final opportunity to Commissioner Secretary, General Administration Department to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner and submission of compliance report before June 3 failing which the Secretary GAD shall appear in person.
When the contempt petition came up for hearing today, Senior Additional Advocate General, Seema Shekhar, appearing on behalf of GAD, moved an application seeking extension in time for compliance to the order dated May 19, 2015 and exemption from appearance of Secretary GAD.
“The new Commissioner Secretary GAD has taken over the charge of the post few days back….very shortly he will pass the appropriate order”, she submitted while seeking two week’s time for complying with the order.
Opposing this, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioner said, “the respondents have slept over the matter for more than five years. The mode and manner in which the representation has been dealt with indicates gross negligence on the part of respondents and they are required to be taken to task”.
After hearing both the sides, Chief Justice, in the open court, remarked, “Government acts in continuity…..original order was passed on December 23, 2009….what the Government has been doing during the past five years”, adding “this is nothing less than lackadaisical approach on the part of the Chief Secretary and the Commissioner Secretary GAD”.
Reiterating that huge delay of more than five years in taking decision on the part of Chief Secretary and Commissioner Secretary GAD cannot be condoned, the Chief Justice, in the open court, further remarked, “in the last order the High Court had made it clear that the dilly dallying tactics of the respondents is a fit case where they may be asked to pay compensation to the petitioner, who would have gone up the promotion ladder had his representation been taken seriously by the respondents”.
With these remarks, the Chief Justice asked Senior AAG Seema Shekhar: “Should I announce Rs 1 lakh compensation per year for delaying the implementation of the order….should I announce Rs 50,000 or Rs 25000 per year”. However, Senior AAG didn’t say anything and sought two week’s time for ensuring compliance of the order.
Stating that conduct of the Chief Secretary in delaying implementation of court order inspite of final opportunity granted on May 19, 2015 cannot at all be appreciated, the DB granted two weeks time to report compliance. However, for the delay in implementing the order for past over five years, the Chief Secretary was directed to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 for each year totaling an amount of Rs 50,000.
“The amount is to be paid along with order to be passed in compliance to the order passed by this court”, the DB said while casting aspersions on the functioning of the General Administration Department.
The stand taken by the Chief Secretary and Commissioner Secretary has established that those at the helm of affairs in the State bureaucracy and hold key positions have scant regard to the State Litigation Policy, which stresses that Government employees should not be pushed to endless litigation.
This Policy lays thrust on deciding the matters administratively without intervention of courts but in the present case the State delayed the decision despite orders of the High Court for more than five years thereby resulting into prolonged litigation.
Follow our WhatsApp channel