Service Benefits Claim Falls Outside Permanent Lok Adalat's Jurisdiction, Rules Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court quashes a Permanent Lok Adalat award directing grant of service benefits, holding that service matters do not fall within the forum's statutory jurisdiction over public utility services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly at the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court, has quashed an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Merta, District Nagaur, on the ground that the forum had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for service benefits. The award, dated 17 September 2025, had directed the Public Health Engineering Department to grant an employee all service benefits from the date of his initial appointment, 4 April 1978. The court held that a dispute over service benefits is not a “public utility service” matter as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and that the Permanent Lok Adalat had therefore exercised a power not vested in it. The petitioner—the State of Rajasthan through the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division, Merta—had challenged the award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Employee's Grievance and the Permanent Lok Adalat's Award

Bhanwar Lal Jain, resident of Merta City, District Nagaur, was appointed to the post of Helper on a temporary basis on 4 April 1978. However, for the purpose of service benefits, his service was counted only from 17 September 1981. After completing two years of service, he was declared a semi-permanent employee on the post of Store Munshi on 4 April 1980, and the pay scale of that post was accordingly granted to him.

When the Department declined to extend all service benefits from 4 April 1978, Jain filed an application under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Merta, seeking a direction to the Department to reckon his service from the date of his initial appointment. The Department opposed the application before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

The Permanent Lok Adalat, Merta allowed the application and directed the Department to grant Jain all service benefits from 4 April 1978. The Department moved the High Court against this award.

The Jurisdictional Challenge Raised by the Department

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner raised a singular but decisive objection: the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to hear a service matter. He submitted that the categories of disputes for which a grievance can be raised before a Permanent Lok Adalat are limited to those falling within “public utility services” as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987. A claim for service benefits from the date of initial appointment, he argued, is plainly outside that definition.

Jain appeared in person. When the court explained the legal issue around the maintainability of his application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, he was unable to respond to the jurisdictional point. Noting that Jain was unaware of the legal technicalities involved, Justice Dhand requested Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Senior Advocate, to assist the court on Jain's behalf and to explain the legal position to him.

After discussing the matter with Senior Advocate Bhansali, Jain accepted the legal position on jurisdiction. He requested that liberty be granted to him to pursue the matter before the Department, and that the court direct the authorities to consider his claim sympathetically and pass a reasoned order.

How the Court Read Sections 22A, 22B, and 22C

Justice Dhand examined the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 in detail. The court noted that the Act was enacted to provide free legal services to weaker sections and to organise Lok Adalats so that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity.

Chapter VIA of the Act deals with pre-litigation conciliation and settlement. Section 22B provides for the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats to exercise jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services. The court observed that the constitution of a Permanent Lok Adalat — with a sitting or retired District Judge or Additional District Judge as its chairman, along with two persons having experience in public utility services — itself reflects that the forum's remit is confined to public utility service disputes.

Section 22A(b) defines “public utility service” to mean transport by air, road or water; postal, telegraph or telephone services; supply of power, light or water to the public; public conservancy or sanitation; hospital or dispensary services; insurance services; and any other service that the Central or State Government may, by notification, declare to be a public utility service. The court noted that the definition lists six specific categories and allows expansion by government notification, but that employment service benefits fall within none of those categories.

Turning to Section 22C, the court noted that while it allows “any party to a dispute” to approach a Permanent Lok Adalat before the dispute reaches a court, those words must be read in the context of the jurisdiction for which the Permanent Lok Adalat was established. The forum has no jurisdiction over matters relating to non-compoundable offences, and its pecuniary jurisdiction is subject to the value-of-property limit. The section also bars a party from approaching any court in the same dispute once an application is filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

The court explained the two-stage mechanism under Section 22C: the Permanent Lok Adalat must first attempt conciliation; if that fails and the dispute does not relate to any offence, it must decide the matter on merits. But this adjudicatory power, the court emphasised, is exercisable only within the boundaries of the forum's subject-matter jurisdiction — public utility services.

Service Benefits Are Not a Public Utility Service Dispute

Applying these provisions, Justice Dhand held that the jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat can be invoked only for grievances relating to public utility services as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act. A claim for reckoning service from the date of initial appointment and extending consequential service benefits is, by its nature, a service matter. It does not fall within any of the six enumerated categories of public utility services, nor has any government notification brought it within the expanded definition.

The court concluded that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Merta had entertained and decided a dispute entirely outside its statutory remit. The purpose of establishing Permanent Lok Adalats is to exercise limited jurisdiction over public utility services, “and not otherwise.” By adjudicating a service benefit claim, the forum exercised a power and jurisdiction not vested in it by law.

On this ground alone, Justice Dhand held the award dated 17 September 2025 to be unsustainable in law.

Order

The High Court quashed and set aside the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Merta, District Nagaur, dated 17 September 2025, in Case No.1/2025.

Jain was granted liberty to submit a fresh application before the petitioner-authority for redressal of his grievance. If he files such an application within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order, the court expressed the expectation that the Department will hear and decide it sympathetically and expeditiously, preferably within two months thereafter, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

If, after that process, Jain remains aggrieved, he will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law. All pending applications were disposed of.