E-Paper
Delay in delivery of service: HC quashes strictures, fine order against IAS officer
Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran told to compensate Faridabad woman with ₹1 lakh for causing “undue hardship”
INTRO:
The Punjab and Haryana high court quashed strictures and fine imposed on IAS officer and former Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) chief administrator Ajit Balaji Joshi by the Haryana Right to Service Commission (HRTSC) in 2022 in an alleged case of delay in service of a Faridabad woman.
High court bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, however, imposed a compensation of ₹1 lakh on the HSVP for causing “undue hardship” and “unnecessary delays in the decision making and subjecting the woman to unnecessary litigation”.
Both the IAS officer and HSVP were in appeal against the RTS commission order in which the officer was penalised with ₹20,000 for causing ‘significant’ delay in delivering the service for which the notified time limit is five days.
The case pertained to the transfer of a plot in Faridabad’s Sector 64 to one Megha Gupta in July 2012. In 2019, the woman had filed an application to submit conveyance deed, which was rejected on the grounds that area has been increased from 135 square metres to 148.5. She was asked to deposit over ₹58,000 on account of increased size and additional ₹3.91 lakh as interest on the outstanding amount.
Feeling harassed, the woman then sought permission for euthanasia from the Prime Minister. It was during this that the commission took suo motu of her complaint in June 2022 and passed the order in question.
In respect of IAS officer’s role, the commission observed that it failed to find any material on the basis of which the officer had to be adversely commented upon. It took note of the fact that the woman had not complained of any victimisation or mischief against her and neither attributed motive, malice or any foul play or foul demand against him.
The court observed that the commission had powers to take suo motu cognizance of complaints but said that not in the event when decision on a matter was pending with the designated officer against whom the complainant was agitating. “Even though, the above view may be construed as restricted, however, the legislature has consciously not conferred any unbridled, unqualified, sweeping, general and overriding suo moto powers on the commission,” it said.
It disposed of the matter and asked the HSVP to pay woman ₹1 lakh further recording that grievance of the allottee was not redressed, which caused undue harassment to the woman, and the same cannot be ignored or permitted on the ground that the HSVP had chosen to prefer an appeal which has subjected the allottee woman to “an unwanted and unnecessary litigation”.
