STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRABHAKAR S THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) THE respondents are aggrieved by the order dated 7-8-2004 and consequential order dated 4-9-2004 passed in Pension Lok Nyayalaya in Pension matter No. 3 of 2004. The petitioner before the Pension Lok Nyayalaya was a retired employee of respondent No. 2. It was pointed out before the Lok nyayalaya on behalf of the petitioner that no decision had yet been taken for extending the benefit of pension scheme to the employees of MHADA and that government had appointed M/s K. A. Pandit to ascertain exact amount likely to be involved which the Chartered Accountant worked out to be 20. 49 crores. That report was yet to be considered by the Government. It was also pointed out that the petitioner No. 2 herein cannot independently take decision on its own as the implementation of pension scheme involve huge financial burden and hence, the approval of the State Government is necessary and essential. The Lok Nyayalaya in Paragraph 4 of the earlier order dated 7th August, 2004 observed as under :

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that considering the purpose and object of the scheme and more specifically Chapter 6 of the Legal Service authority, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the jurisdiction of the Lok nyayalaya is limited to bringing about settlement between the parties by concessions and if settlement or compromise is arrived at then to so record it. No direction or order can be issued if both parties are not agreeable to the same. It is also pointed out that even though in Chapter VI there are expressions like "determination", that determination is not to decide the dispute but determination for the purpose of enabling the parties to arrive at a settlement or compromise. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned Judge in Karnataka High Court in The Commissioner, Karnataka State Public Instruction (Education), bangalore and others vs. Nirupadi Virbhadrappa Shiva Sirnpi, AIR 2001 karnataka 504. Even otherwise it is pointed out that the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Phulan Rani and another, AIR 2004 SC 4105 has clearly on the construction of the Act laid down the parameters of jurisdiction of the Lok Nyayalaya under the Act. From the Judgment it is clear that it is only when both the parties aggrieved, had come to compromise or settlement is it open to the Lok Nyayalaya to record the same. It cannot in the absence of consent of either of the parties issue any directions. On behalf of the respondents, their learned counsel states that considering the judgment in the case of Phulan Rani (supra) it may not be possible for him to canvass the points which he otherwise might have canvassed considering the language of section 95, section 24 and section 22.