Judgment · High Court

Heard Shri Ingle for the petitioner, and Shri N.W. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondents for non- compliance of the order passed by the Pension Lok Adalat on 6th May, 2006 and punish the respondent nos. 1 to 4 according to the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that Pension Lok Adalat had, by an order dated 6th May, 2006, directed the respondents to work out entitlement of the petitioner for pension of minimum at revised scale of Rs. 2,000/- per month being operative from 1/1/1996. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that though the respondents were directed to pay the dues of the petitioner within a period of three 2 months from the date of the order passed by the Pension Lok Adalat, the respondents have failed to comply with the order.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that this Court would not have jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to take action against the respondents as the Pension Lok Adalat cannot be said to be a `Court' subordinate to this Court as contemplated under the said provision. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Pension Lok Adalat could not exercise adjudicatory function and the order passed by the Pension Lok Adalat on 6/5/2006 is challenged in Writ Petition No. 4615/2007 which is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Division Bench of this Court has granted stay to the order passed by the Pension Lok Adalat in Writ Petition No. 4615/2007. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the contempt proceedings are liable to be dropped.

There considerable submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the Pension Lok Adalat is not a Court as contemplated under the provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1196 that when the Legal Services Authorities Act refers to `determination' by the Lok Adalat and `award' by the 3 Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the making the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat.