Allahabad High Court
Smt Rachna vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 May, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:77488
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6674 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt Rachna
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Yadav,Syed Fahim Ahmed
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Umesh Chandra Kesarwani
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ACSC for State - respondents and Shri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.04.2024 passed by the Block Education Officer, the respondent no. 2, disapproving the child care leave to the petitioner from 12.04.2024 to 08.10.2024 on the ground that the duration of the leave is very long.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not propose to file any counter affidavit and submits that the instant writ petition may finally be disposed of at this stage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Attendant (Paricharak) at Uccha Prathamik Vidyalaya, Sudinpur, Chitrakoot since 12.01.2011. He further submits that the first child of the petitioner was born on 13.08.2017; whereas, her second child was born on 10.10.2023 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for maternity leave as well as child care leave. He further submits that since the second child of the petitioner is ill, therefore, she wants child care leave from 12.04.2024 to 08.10.2024 for a period of 180 days. In this regard, she submitted an application before the respondent no. 2, but the same has been rejected by the respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 11.04.2024 on the ground that the duration of the leave is very long. He further submits that as per the Government Order dated 08.12.2008, the petitioner is entitled for 180 days' child care leave and therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 supports the impugned order. He further submits that in view of clause (2) of the Government Order dated 11.04.2011, the child care leave cannot be granted more than three times in a calendar year. He further submits that as per clause (3) of the Government Order dated 01.03.2023, normally, the child care leave cannot be granted for more than 30 days in a time. Therefore, the application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the impugned order.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.
7. It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.
8. Highlighting this rule, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, has observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. The aforesaid judgment has been quoted with approval by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee (supra) has emphasized the importance of recording of reasons for decisions by the administrative authorities and tribunals. It said "administrative process will best be vindicated by clarity in its exercise. The administrative order, without any reason, causes prejudice to the person against whom it is passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, has emphasized the importance of recording reason for the decision by the administrative authorities.
9. The impugned order dated 11.04.2024 reads as under:-
"???? (??? - ??????), ??? ???? /?????/?????? UPS SUDINPUR ?? ???? ????? (??????? ?????? - ????????) ?? ?????? ??-??-???? ?? ?????? ??-??-???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??, ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?????"
10. In the case in hand, after perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that while passing the impugned order, no reason has been assigned. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 11.04.2024 passed by the Block Education Officer, the respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed.
12. The petitioner has unnecessarily been dragged into the litigation.
13. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be paid by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Amit Mishra
