Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16120 of 2017 Petitioner :- Doodh Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Moti Lal,Meera Devi,Vivek Wilson Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tariq Maqbool Khan
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is a Rojgar Sewak. He has challenged the resolution of the Administrative Committee of the concerned Gram Panchayat dated 29th September, 2014, whereby a decision has been taken to terminate the contract of the petitioner on the ground of his unsatisfactory work. The impugned resolution, which the petitioner has brought on record as annexure-13 to the writ petition, indicates that it was a unanimous decision of the Gram Sabha.
Earlier the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being Writ-A No. 54938 of 2013, Doodh Nath v. State of U.P. and others, for a direction upon the respondents to pay his honorarium, which has not been paid. This Court vide order dated 04th October, 2013 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction upon the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months. In compliance thereof, a detailed order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Kushi Nagar on 02nd April, 2014 and the District Magistrate has found that the petitioner by threatening the Gram Panchayat Sachiv has got a cheque issued from him. The District Magistrate has also noticed the conduct of the petitioner and has rejected his claim by a reasoned order. The petitioner has challenged the said order by way of Writ-A No. 29530 of 2014, which is still pending.
By the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged his termination order which was passed on 29th September, 2014 i.e. three years back. The impugned resolution clearly indicates that the Gram Panchayat after considering the conduct of the petitioner has recorded that his work and conduct is not satisfactory and unanimous decision has been taken to terminate his services. The petitioner has challenged the said order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has earlier filed the writ petitions, due to mala fide the Gram Panchayat has terminated his services. No other submission has been made.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is contractual and the writ petition has been filed after lapse of three years, therefore, the writ petition is hit by laches.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The employment of Rojgar Sewak is only for eleven months and they work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Their appointing authority is Gram Sabha. The record indicates that the petitioner's earlier writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his grievance, which has been considered and rejected by the District Magistrate by a reasoned order. The said order of the District Magistrate has been challenged in another writ petition, wherein no interim order has been passed, and it is still pending.
As regards the termination order of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat has taken the decision three years' back in 2014. The writ petition has been filed after three years. In the writ petition no sufficient cause has been shown for filing the writ petition after three years. Moreover, the appointment of the Rojgar Sewak is contractual. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that in the matter of contractual appointment the Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director Institute of Management Development U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.), (1992) 4 SCC 33. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Gridco Limited and another v. Sadananda Doloi and others, (2011) 15 SCC 16, has held that in the matter of contractual appointments if the services of such appointees are no longer required, the order terminating contractual appointments cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the matter is purely based on contract.
In the present case the petitioner has filed the writ petition after three years without any explanation for the delay. In absence of any satisfactory explanation the petitioner is guilty of laches. Moreover, the term of Rojgar Sewak is only 11 months. The Supreme Court has recently noticed filing of frivolous petitions in the High Courts. In the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112, the Supreme Court has laid down the law that it is high time that the Courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. The Court has further held that in order to curb such kind of litigation, the courts have to ensure that exemplary costs are imposed upon the parties as well as on the learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:
"12. All these are aberrations in the functioning of the Apex Court of any country. Of late, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the courts, including this Court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done.
13. It is high time that the courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on the learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner. {Vide Varinderpal Singh v. M.R. Sharma, 1986 Supp SCC 719, Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 1, and Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani, (2012) 8 SCC 781 : AIR 2012 SC 2881.}
14. Many a times this Court has expressed its anguish and unhappiness about the time of the Court being wasted for petty matters. {See Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 : AIR 1975 SC 1331) and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, (1997) 4 SCC 287 : AIR 1997 SC 3750).}"
The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470, has also taken the judicial notice of frivolous litigation and held that the Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation and heavy costs should be imposed upon such litigants to curb such frivolous litigation. The relevant paragraphs, being paragraph- 191, 192 and 193 of the judgment, are quoted below:
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long-drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by the one who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a "Code of Compulsory Costs".
192. We should not be taken to have suggested that the cost of litigation should be enhanced. It is not our suggestion that the court fee or other litigation related costs should be raised. Access to justice and related costs should be as free and as low as possible. What is sought to be redressed is a habituation to press illegitimate claims. This practice and pattern is so rampant that in most cases disputes which ought to have been settled in no time at all before the first court of incidence are prolonged endlessly for years and years and from court to court up to the highest Court.
193. This abuse of the judicial process is not limited to any particular class of litigants. The State and its agencies litigate endlessly up to the highest Court just because of the lack of responsibility to take decisions. So much so that we have started to entertain the impression that all administrative and executive decision-making are being left to courts just for that reason. In private litigation as well, the litigant concerned would continue to approach the higher Court, despite the fact that he had lost in every court hithertobefore. The effort is not to discourage a litigant in whose perception his cause is fair and legitimate. The effort is only to introduce consequences if the litigant's perception was incorrect and if his cause is found to be not fair and legitimate, he must pay for the same. In the present setting of the adjudicatory process, a litigant no matter how irresponsible he is suffers no consequences. Every litigant, therefore, likes to take a chance even when counsel's advice is otherwise."
Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a Rojgar Sewak and he draws a meagre remuneration, the Court desists to impose any cost but with a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future as he has already filed three writ petitions without explaining the delay.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 SKT/-