State Women’s Commission Lacks Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Service Matters or Summon Officials Therein

The petitioners (SECL) acquired land under the CBA Act, 1957, and MPLRC, 1959, for mining operations

Respondents 2 to 5, daughters of affected persons, filed a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog (Respondent No. 1) alleging denial of employment under the rehabilitation policy

During the pendency of the complaint, SECL granted the appointments, and the private respondents joined their duties and applied to withdraw their complaints before the Ayog

Despite this, the Ayog continued the proceedings and summoned SECL officials for personal appearances

The petitioners challenged these proceedings, asserting the Ayog exceeded its jurisdiction

1. Whether the State Women’s Commission (Ayog) has the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning service matters and grant of employment

2. Whether the Ayog can continue proceedings after the original grievance of the complainants has been redressed and a withdrawal application has been filed

The court primarily applied Section 10 of the State Women’s Commission Act, 1995, which defines the powers and functions of the Commission

It further relied on the "Procedure for Dealing with Complaints" (Para 2, Sub-para 3), which expressly prohibits the Ayog from taking cognizance of service matters that do not involve a deprivation of specific women’s rights

The court also invoked the principle that the Ayog possesses primarily recommendatory powers and lacks the authority to act as an adjudicatory body for employment disputes

The Court reasoned that the dispute regarding the right to employment in lieu of land acquisition is strictly a service-related matter

Under the statutory framework of the State Women’s Commission Act, 1995, the Ayog is barred from entertaining service matters unless there is a clear deprivation of women’s rights, which was not present here

The Court found that by summoning SECL officers and continuing proceedings despite the resolution of the grievance, the Ayog acted in dereliction of its statutory powers and exceeded its jurisdiction

Furthermore, since the complainants had already been employed and sought to withdraw their claims, the Court noted there was no subsisting lis to adjudicate

Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders (dated 03.10.2020, 18/19.08.2021, and 03.09.2021) and the entire proceedings initiated by the Ayog as being contrary to law

The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioners