Mandamus to Expeditiously Constitute Committee and Decide Grievances Regarding Regularization of Panchayat Employees

The seven petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Sachiv) in various Gram Panchayats under the Zila Panchayat, Raipur, between 1995 and 1996.

They sought regularization into the State Government cadre based on long-standing demands and a public declaration by the Hon’ble Chief Minister regarding the constitution of a committee to examine the matter.

Despite a formal communication from the Chief Minister’s Secretariat to the Chief Secretary on May 2, 2022, directing action on this declaration, the respondent authorities failed to take substantive steps or constitute the committee for over a year.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction for the committee to submit its report and for the State to decide their grievances in a time-bound manner.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to constitute the grievance committee and pass orders regarding the petitioners' regularization based on the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

2. Whether a time-bound direction should be issued to the State authorities to conclude the grievance redressal process.

The court's intervention was grounded in the administrative law principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel, which arise when a public authority (such as the Chief Minister) makes a clear declaration or promise that creates a legal expectation of a certain procedure or benefit.

The court also emphasized the requirement for government policies and administrative actions to operate within a reasonable time frame to prevent the frustration of statutory or procedural rights.

The petitioners argued that the official communication from the Chief Minister’s Secretariat dated May 2, 2022, created a binding expectation that a committee would be formed to address their regularization.

The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute the claim; rather, the State’s counsel submitted that the authorities were actively considering the matter and were willing to pass necessary orders within a fixed timeframe.

By acknowledging the State's undertaking, the Court applied the rule of administrative accountability, ensuring that the delay in implementing the government's own declaration did not further infringe upon the petitioners' rights.

The Court answered the issues by mandating that appropriate orders must be passed in accordance with the law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order copy.

The petition was finalized with this specific time-bound direction to ensure the administrative process is concluded.