Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Permanent Lok Adalat can deal only with disputes relating to notified public utility services and cannot adjudicate claims concerning the service benefits of government employees.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made the observation while quashing an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, in favour of Bhanwar Lal Jain, which had directed the State to grant him service benefits from the date of his initial appointment.
Claim Traced Back to 1978
Petitioner was appointed as a temporary Helper in April 1978. However, his services were counted for service benefits only from September 1981. After completing two years of service, he was declared semi-permanent as a Store Munshi in April 1980 and was granted the applicable pay scale.
Seeking service benefits from his original appointment date, petitioner 0approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, Merta, under Section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
In 2025, the Lok Adalat allowed his application and directed the State to grant him all consequential service benefits from April 4, 1978.
The State challenged the award before the High Court, arguing that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to decide a government service dispute.
Permanent Lok Adalat Has Limited Jurisdiction
The High Court examined Legal Services Authorities Act and noted that Permanent Lok Adalats are constituted to deal with disputes concerning specified public utility services, such as transport, postal and telephone services, supply of power, light or water, sanitation, hospitals and insurance.
The Court clarified that the expression “any party to a dispute” used in does not confer unlimited jurisdiction on a Permanent Lok Adalat. Its authority remains restricted to disputes arising from the public utility services covered under the Act.
Since petitioner claim related to service benefits arising from his government employment, the Court held that it did not fall within the definition of a public utility service.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Permanent Lok Adalat had “exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it.”
The High Court accordingly quashed and set aside the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.