IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20862 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:12.03.2010 Shivani Thakur ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Cuccria, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) C.M. No.2482 of 2010 The application is allowed, as prayed for. Documents on behalf of 2nd respondent is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.20862 of 2008 1. The petitioner seeks for issue of writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent namely, State Project Director Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Authority, Punjab, to initiate an enquiry to the matter of a complaint of Civil Writ Petition No.20862 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - sexual harassment alleged to have been inflicted on the petitioner at the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Roopnagar. The complaint of the petitioner is that there had been no lawfully constituted Committee in the manner envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishakha Versus State of Rajasthan-1997 (6) SCC 241 to enquire into the complaint of the sexual harassment and the respondents had constituted some enquiry and obtained a report rejecting the complaint. 2. The contest in defence by the respondents is that the petitioner had not participated in any of the enquiries and 4 reports had already been given finding that the complaint was not true. The 3rd respondent, however, states that they have presently constituted a Committee as provided under the guidelines in Vishakha and the petitioner ought not to have any grievance about participating in an enquiry before such a Committee constituted for the purpose. The petitioner still has a grievance that one of the persons who represents NGO does not have any experience in dealing with the issues of complaint of sexual harassment, as required to be done as per the guidelines in Vishakha. The learned counsel appearing the 3rd respondent would state that he will have no objection if the Court replaces the person in NGO or constitutes any other Committee which could go into the complaint given by the petitioner. 3. Both the parties agree that there is a Central Committee of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Authority at Chandigarh and the petitioner will have no objection if the matter is examined by the Committee when the petitioner will have full opportunity to participate and secure its Civil Writ Petition No.20862 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - findings for appropriate action. Under the circumstances, therefore, I am of the view, that interest of justice would be best served if the Committee already constituted for the purpose is discharged and the complaint of the petitioner is examined by the Central Committee of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Authority at Chandigarh, which will examine the complaint and render the findings in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has a further grievance that the petitioner had been pushed from pillar to post all these years and the institution, instead of punishing a person, who was guilty of sexual harassment, had only harassed her and she had ultimately to leave the job and take up employment elsewhere. The petitioner would further contend that the institution did not have a Committee all these years in spite of Vishakha judgment and all the so-called enquiry and the reports have come to nothing, for there was a fundamental breach in following the directions of the Vishakha as regards the composition of the Committee. The learned counsel would refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S.Grewal Versus Vimmi Joshi and others-2009(1) SCT 773, where the Hon'ble Court held that as regards the management of a school which was guilty of violating the guidelines issued by the Court in Vishakha, it would be justified in directing it to bear all the costs. The case was disposed of with the cost assessed at Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore seek for a compensation. There is actually no prayer for compensation in the petition, although an application has been subsequently filed, referring to the above Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil Writ Petition No.20862 of 2008 (O&M) - 4 - judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court itself was not directing the compensation to be paid, but while disposing of the petition, it was allowing the costs of the case, it assessed it at Rs.50,000/-. It is too obvious that costs are different from compensation. In this case, I find the case has not proceeded as contentious mode but there has been a meeting of minds with the assistance of counsel in securing to the petitioner what she is asking for. The grievance is sufficiently redressed and hence there shall be no terms as to costs or damages. 5. The writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner's complaint will be examined by the Central Committee Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Authority at Chandigarh, which Committee, it is needless to state, will observe the strict guidelines as mentioned in the Vishakha dispensation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards the composition of the Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 26.04.2010. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.03.2010 sanjeev