Mandamus Directing Time-Bound Resolution of Grievances Regarding Regularization of Panchayat Sachivs by Expert Committee

The Petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi (Sachiv) in 1995 under the Zila Panchayat, Bastar

Following long-standing demands for the regularization of Panchayat Sachivs into the State Government cadre, the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh publicly declared the formation of a committee to examine the matter and update the Chief Minister's office periodically

A formal communication was issued on 02.05.2022 by the Secretariat to the Chief Secretary to act upon this declaration

However, despite the lapse of over a year, no substantive action was taken by the respondent authorities

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the committee to submit its report and for the State to decide the grievance in a time-bound manner

1. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to constitute the committee and decide the Petitioner's grievance regarding regularization within a specific time frame

The Court applied the principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel, asserting that when the head of a State makes a conscious declaration or policy decision that creates a reasonable expectation of a benefit, the administrative authorities are duty-bound to act upon such communications in a timely and transparent manner

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure administrative accountability when policies fail to operate within a reasonable time frame

The Court noted that the Chief Minister’s declaration and the subsequent official memo dated 02.05.2022 created a valid right of legitimate expectation for the Petitioner and similarly situated employees

It observed that the deliberate inaction of the respondents for over a year regarding the constitution of the committee frustrated these expectations and hindered the adjudication of the Petitioner's lawful claims

The Court took into account the submission by the State’s counsel, who acknowledged the pending claim and undertook that the competent authorities would pass necessary orders in accordance with the law within 45 days

Based on this undertaking and the facts presented, the Court found it necessary to set a strict timeline to prevent further infringement of the Petitioner’s rights

The Court held that appropriate orders must be passed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order copy