M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM,C.J. - (1.) AMOD Prasad Ram is a retired District and Sessions Judge. He was appointed as Chairman of permanent Lok Adalat of the District of Jamshedpur by the order dated 12.3.2004 for two years. He assumed charge as such on 4.4.2004 and got superannuated in March, 2006. He presented the bills claiming Rs. 2,69,000/ - for 538 sittings as he is entitled to Rs. 500/ - per sitting and also the conveyance allowance of Rs. 72,000/ - claiming Rs. 3000/ - per month, totaling Rs. 3,41,000/ -. The State Legal Services Authority paid him only Rs. 99,000/ - and the balance of Rs. 2,42,000/ - has not been paid. Having felt aggrieved by this, he approached this Court and filed the writ petition under Article 226, seeking for issuance of mandamus to direct the respondent -authorities to pay the statutory balance legal dues towards sitting fees as well as the conveyance allowance.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: On being appointed by the order dated 12.3.2004 as Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, he took charge on 4.4.2004. During his tenure of 2 years, he had total 538 sittings. Therefore, he furnished the bills for sitting fees and conveyance allowance @ Rs. 500/ - per sitting and Rs. 3000/ - per month respectively. The claim made by him came to Rs 2,69,000/ - towards sitting fees and Rs. 72,000/ - towards conveyance allowance He has been paid only Rs. 99,000/ - and is entitled to balance of Rs. 2,42,000/ -. The petitioner made various representations regarding his claim to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, but the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, sent a letter dated 18.5.2006 stating that the petitioner was entitled to sitting fees only for 76 sittings as he would be considered for sitting only on the date on which at least two cases were disposed of. Further instruction was issued by the letter dated 11.12.2005 regarding payment of conveyance allowance @ Rs. 3000/ - per month, subject to the condition that there must be two sittings in a week. The restriction to 76 sittings towards the claim of the petitioner and the restriction that there must be disposal of two cases in a week even for claiming conveyance allowance are not consistent with the relevant Rules. As per Rule 7(2) and (3), all the working days are sitting days and he attended and worked 538 days. The Chairman is required to entertain complaint and to take all other steps for summoning the parties etc. every day, which constitutes a sitting for him. The sitting with other Members is only needed for final hearing and disposal. Hence, he as a Chairman is entitled to sitting fees on each working day on which he attended and worked. The case of the respondents is as follows: As per the relevant Rules, it cannot be said that all the working days are sitting days. Sitting day means the Chairman and Members of the Permanent Lok Adalat has to dispose of two cases in each sitting and the sitting should be arranged in such a manner so that maximum numbers of cases can be disposed of on one day of sitting and in the light of the relevant Rules. Instructions have been given to all the Officers of the Permanent Lok Adalat and as such, the calculation made by the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority is correct. Accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to the sitting fees for all the working days which the petitioner claimed as sitting days.
(3.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and also have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.;