The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O v. Durgesh Kumar Ram

12. Ujjwal Kumar Pandey, aged about 30 years, son of Sri Ram Lakhan Pandey, resident of Village – Kundo, P.O.-Jhiko-Chhati, P.S. Bhandra, District- Lohardaga (Jharkhand)

13. Md. Zaid Ansari, aged about 40 years, son of Md. Mojibuddin Ansari, resident of Village – Henahat, P.O.- Henhat, P.S.- Kairo, Hanhat, District- Lohardaga (Jharkhand) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Respondents/Writ Petitioners For the Appellants --------- : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I --------- Order No. 05/Dated: 30th January 2024 A chart prepared by Deputy Development Commissioner Cum Additional District Programme Coordinator, Lohardaga has been tendered in the Court.

2. According to Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned Sr. S.C.-I the total burden on exchequer on account of payment of interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the withheld monthly wages for seven months for 13 thirteen respondents who were before the writ Court shall be paid Rs.57,595/-.

3. However, to justify the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the learned State Counsel would submit that the writ Court’s order is likely to open the floodgates and about 1367 other similarly situated persons employed under the MGNREGA Scheme may raise a similar claim and it -3- L.P.A. No. 261 of 2023 would be about Rs.60.00 lakhs additional burden that shall come on the State exchequer.

4. The learned State Counsel has referred to the following grounds made in the memorandum of appeal:- “E. F. G. For that the delay in payment was due to introduction of REAT (Receipt, Expenditure, Advances, Transfer) Module by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India in December 2021. The Rural Development Ministry, Government of India made the payment under MGNREGA Scheme mandatory through REAT Module from December, 2021. After introduction of REAT Module it was necessary to impart training to concerned officers as well as technical employees to run the software properly and to enter the requisite data to start and continue the process of Payment through this gateway. For that earlier the payment of remuneration was made through cheque and after the introduction of REAT Module the payment was made directly in the account of employees. Under REAT Module the detail of the employees was required to be entered in MGNREGA Software and thereafter verification through PFMS done by the Rural Development Ministry, Government of India by automated process. For that the digital signature was verified by the Rural through Development Ministry, Government of automated process. It took time to understand the new technique for its proper and effective implementation and further training was imparted to the employees at the level of Village Panchayat.” India

5. In the first place, this is not disputed by the State of Jharkhand that the Computer Operators/Data Entry Operators who were working in different Blocks within the district of Lohardaga were not paid monthly wages for seven months; from November 2021 to May 2022. Compelled, they came before this Court in W.P. (S) No.4316 of 2022. During pendency of the said writ petition, they were paid their monthly wages for seven months on different dates between the period 21st October 2022 to 24th November 2022 and, on 25th November 2022, the writ Court was apprised about the payment of monthly wages to the writ petitioners. In the aforesaid background facts, the writ Court thought it proper to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the withheld amount of wages for seven months.

6. This is no longer in the realm of any doubt that the writ Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution may issue direction for compensation. This is also well known that one of the manners of granting compensation is to grant interest over the money payable to the aggrieved party. -4- L.P.A. No. 261 of 2023

7. Secondly, the State of Jharkhand seems to have forgotten its own litigation policy under which it has taken a pledge not to multiply litigations in the Courts.

8. In “Urban Improvement Trust Vs Mohan Lal” (2010) 1 SCC 512 the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its anguish observing that frivolous, vexatious, technical objections taken by the State Governments and statutory authorities are serious obstructions to the path of justice. In “Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International (1979) 4 SCC 176 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “2. We do not think that this is a fit case where we should proceed to determine whether the claim of the respondent was barred by Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905). The plea of limitation based on this section is one which the court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well-founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable. Here, it is obvious that the claim of the respondent was a just claim supported as it was by the recommendation of the Assistant Collector of Customs and hence in the exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, we do not see any reason why we should proceed to hear this appeal and adjudicate upon the plea of the appellant based on Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905).”

9. Indeed, unnecessary litigations should not travel to the Courts and that too at the instance of the State Government. The frivolous and unjust litigation by the State Government and statutory authorities must be deprecated by the Courts. As we have noticed, in the memorandum of the present appeal, the State of Jharkhand has raised the boggy of opening of floodgates, but then, this cannot be a ground for the Court not to pass an order wherever the situation demands [refer, “D.G.M. (HR) P.G. Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. T. Venkat Reddy” (2007) 4 SCC 710]. The plea put forth on behalf of the State of Jharkhand that accepting the writ Court’s direction to pay interest on the withheld amount of monthly wages may open floodgates for 1367 other workers to raise a similar demand cannot be countenanced in law. The writ Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on -5- L.P.A. No. 261 of 2023 the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and such exercise of power by the writ Court in the present case cannot be held unjustified.

10. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, L.P.A. No. 261 of 2023 is dismissed.

11. Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) Manoj/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)