State 'First-Responder' To Citizens' Grievances, Ought To Pass Speaking Orders In Employee's Representations: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court recently reminded the State about its role in cutting down unwanted litigation before the already over-burdened courts. The High Court also called upon the state instrumentalities to pass speaking orders, after due consideration of representations preferred by aggrieved employees. “…by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and...
Rajasthan High Court recently reminded the State about its role in cutting down unwanted litigation before the already over-burdened courts. The High Court also called upon the state instrumentalities to pass speaking orders, after due consideration of representations preferred by aggrieved employees.
“…by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially… the only requirement it ought to fulfil is that of providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice…”, the court observed.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain also expressed his disapproval about the non-consideration of representations made by state employees, which the court termed as 'unbecoming of government servants' who render the employees' grievances mute by such conduct.
“…By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs”, the bench sitting at Jaipur pointed out.
To achieve the aforementioned objectives, the Chief Secretary of the State has been asked to issue appropriate instructions to state authorities for consideration of representations and disposal of the same with speaking orders.
The representation preferred by the employee in this case, before the filing of the writ petition, should be disposed of within 30 days, the court has instructed.
Earlier, the Department of Personnel, Rajasthan passed an order of suspension against the petitioner on 24.02.2023. On 23.08.2023, the petitioner challenged this suspension order with a representation seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. However, the department did not take any steps to adjudicate this representation, as alleged by the petitioner. As a result, the current writ petition was filed before the High Court.
It was argued by the counsel for the suspended employee that turning a deaf ear to representations made has become a commonplace practice. This, in turn, forces the aggrieved to knock on the doors of the court since they are left with no other options.
In response, the counsel for the state was unable to stick with any reasonable explanation for the non-consideration of representation preferred by the suspended employee.
Since the state is a 'welfare state', it is burdened with the duty of ensuring the socio-economic well-being of its citizens, the court noted in the beginning of the order.
“…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 alluded to the duty of the state authorities that have expertise in determining service matters.
The court further mentioned the non-necessity of passing orders that are invariable favourable to the aggrieved employees; the factum of lending an ear to their grievances would suffice.
“…However, by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State, even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely”, the court opined while also referring to Section 89 of CPC and the requirement of passing speaking orders.
A copy of the order will be sent to the offices of Chief Secretary and Law Secretary for compliance.
Advocate Tribhuvan Narayan Singh appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Ajay Rajawat for AAG S.S Raghav represented the state.
Case Title: Pawan Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1665/202
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 72