Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3495 (ALL)

Dashrath Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-10-19

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner is said to be appointed as a class-III employee in the office of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Jaunpur on 12.10.1990. It is stated that he preferred a writ petition [W.P. No. 4714 (SS) of 1995] for direction upon the respondents to regularize his services on the post of Junior Clerk. This Court on 22.11.1995 disposed of the writ petition with a direction upon the competent authority to decide his representation. 2. It is stated that the said order was not complied with by the respondents, hence, he was compelled to file contempt petition bearing No. 906 (C) of 1996. 3. The respondents, in compliance of the order of this Court, appointed the petitioner on fixed pay.. Later, a committee, which was constituted to consider the regularization of the employees made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Director, Ayurvedic Services, U.P., Lucknow (respondent no. 2), vide the order dated 02.01.2014, passed an order for regularization of the petitioner in the pay grade of Rs. 5200- 20,200/-. A copy of the said order is on the record. 4. The petitioner claims that there was regular deduction of the GPF. However, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, an order dated 07.11.2014 has been passed by the respondent no. 2, canceling the order of the regularization, on the ground that he does not fulfil the conditions for regularization. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has instituted this writ proceeding. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said order has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that the order does not contain any reason. Thus, it is arbitrary. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 7. The learned standing counsel has justified the order on the ground that since the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite eligibility for the regularization, there was no reason to give any opportunity. Hence, the order does not need any interference by this Court. 8. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of W.P. No. 4714 (SS) of 1995, seeking his regularization. This Court has disposed of the petition by issuing a direction upon respondents to consider his claim for regularization. 9. Hence, the order does not need any interference by this Court. 8. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of W.P. No. 4714 (SS) of 1995, seeking his regularization. This Court has disposed of the petition by issuing a direction upon respondents to consider his claim for regularization. 9. The respondents, in compliance thereof, has passed order for regularization. Vide the impugned order, the said claim was withdrawn. A perusal of the impugned order indicate that no reason has been assigned. The order is totally skeletal and cryptic. 10. It is trite that furnishing the reason in support of the conclusion is one of the requirement of the fairplay and natural justice. 11. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, [ AIR 1990 SC 1984 ] has held that if the order is without any reason then it is arbitrary. The law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee (supra) has been consistently followed. 12. In the case of Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519 , the Supreme Court has held that in absence of the reason, the order becomes lifeless as the reason is heart beat of the order. 13. In addition to above, the order also does not indicate that any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner in paragraph 17 has clearly made an averment that the said order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The stand taken in the counter affidavit in respect of the said averment is that since the petitioner does not fulfill the necessary condition, he is not entitled for any opportunity. 14. The said stand taken by the respondents are against the well established law of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is trite law that if an order has civil or evil consequences, then the compliance of natural justice is necessary. 15. Reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Anr. [ (1978) 1 SCC 248 ], which has been consistently followed in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and Ors. [ (1980) 4 SCC 379 ] and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. vs. Union of India etc. [ AIR 1981 SC 818 ]. 16. [ (1978) 1 SCC 248 ], which has been consistently followed in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and Ors. [ (1980) 4 SCC 379 ] and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. vs. Union of India etc. [ AIR 1981 SC 818 ]. 16. In view of above, it is admitted position that no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner and order of regularization has been withdrawn, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 17. In my view, the impugned order dated 07.11.2014 passed by respondent no. 2 (Director, Ayurvedic Services, U.P. Lucknow) is unsustainable and it needs to be quashed. Accordingly it is quashed. 18. The matter is remitted to respondent no. 2 to furnish an opportunity to the petitioner and pass the order afresh. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised a number of submissions with regard to his entitlement and of several other grievances, which he is permitted to raise before the authority concerned by way of representation. 20. Respondent no. 2 shall complete the said exercise after giving an opportunity to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 21. In view of above, writ petition is allowed.