Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2026:RJ-JP:44005-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1050/2026
CNR: RJHC020641672026 | URN: SAW / 2017U / 2026

Chandra Prakash ----Appellant
Versus
(1) State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) (2) Joint Director (Insurance), State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (3) Principal Secretary To The Government (Elementary Education), Govt. Secretariat Jaipur (4) Director (Elementary Education), Bikaner, Rajasthan. (5) District Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Distt. Dholpur, Rajasthan (6) Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

For Appellant(s): Mr. D. D. Khandelwal
For Respondent(s):

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the judgment (hcraj file 207600010502026_1.pdf, 3 pages, uploaded 29.10.2026). (1) The paragraph numbers 1-5 are the Court's own. (2) The cause title is abridged: the appellant's parentage, age and address are omitted, and the respondents' numbers are shown as (1)-(6). The print shows no counsel for the respondents. (3) The judgment prints no 'Reportable' mark. (4) Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, quoted in paragraph 3, is kept inline within that paragraph. (5) The text is otherwise as printed, including 'the said provisions unambiguously enumerates', 'no high liability was borne by the appellant herein' and 'Permanent Lok Adalt' (paragraph 3), 'the court-free paid' within the quoted Section 21(1) (paragraph 3), and 'the judgment relied upon by the appellants herein' (paragraph 4), although there is one appellant. Page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload/download stamps, the staff line and the TCPDF line) is removed. The PDF is authoritative.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment dated 28.10.2026.]

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

28/10/2026

1. The present appeal has been preferred assailing the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13114/2019 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Chandra Prakash & Ors.), whereby the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed and the award dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Case No. 154/2016 was quashed and set aside.

2. Heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

3. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and the material available on record, it is observed that the lis at hand pertains to the non-release of payment and bonus to the appellant herein, in respect of which directions for release had been issued by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat. However, the award passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order, for cogent reasons, inter alia, the Permanent Lok Adalat is established under sub-section (1) of section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and is primarily governed by section 22C and 22D of the said Act; that the said provisions unambiguously enumerates that endeavors should be made for settlement of disputes either by negotiation or by conciliation, but in case of failure to arrive at settlement, Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory power to decide the dispute; that no high liability was borne by the appellant herein; that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat had ventured into the realm of disputed questions of fact; and that the dispute inter se the parties admittedly pertained to insurance, which is a contractual obligation, and there was no acceptance by the non-appellants herein. Additionally, it can be noted that the award passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalt, in view of the provisions of section 21 of the Act, holds the stance of a civil court’s decree. The relevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow: “21. Award of Lok Adalat.— (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).— (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.”

4. Further, it is noted that the non-appellant-petitioners had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, an intra-court appeal would not be maintainable, and the appellant herein has an alternative efficacious remedy available in accordance with law. Withal, the judgment relied upon by the appellants herein, namely, Ratna @ Ratan Lal v. Board of Revenue, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 756/2022, stands on a distinguishable footing and, therefore, has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal.

5. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed at the threshold, and no interference is warranted with the order dated 19.01.2026 (supra). Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ