Himachal Pradesh High Court
Office Solan Brewery vs State Of Himachal on 10 September, 2021
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
ON THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.477 of 2020
Between:
CHUNI LAL KASHYAP, SON OF
KOTHO RAM, RESIDENT OF
SHIV SHAKTI BHAWAN,
VILLAGE JARAI, POST
OFFICE SOLAN BREWERY,
TEHSIL AND DISTT. SOLAN,
173214, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
r ....PETITIONER.
(BY SHRI KULDEEP SINGH AND SHRI HIRDAYA RAM,
ADVOCATES )
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY, SHIMLA,
171002, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(FINANCE) TO THE GOVT. OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA, 171002.
3. SECRETARY (LANGUAGE
AND CULTURE) TO THE
GOVT. OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA, 171002.
4. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF LANGUAGE AND
CULTURE, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA, 171009.
....RESPONDENTS.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:11 :::CIS
2
(BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH MR.
ADARSH SHARMA, MR. SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATES GENERAL, FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Leaned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of the Court to annexure P-1, i.e. communication dated
10.07.2017 and by referring to the same, he has submitted that the
case of the petitioner stands rejected by way of a non-speaking
order, as no reasons are contained in order dated 10.07.2017, as to
what weighed with the Finance Department while rejecting the case
of the petitioner.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the
reasons are clearly borne out from the documents which are on
record and as the post held by the petitioner was not at par with
that of Assistant Engineer be it in the IPH Department or Himachal
Pradesh Public Works Department, therefore, he was not entitled for
the fourth year pay structure as is being claimed by the petitioner.
3. This Court is of the considered view that an
administrative authority while passing an order on a representation
of party, has to pass a reasoned and speaking order. It is well settled
law that even an administrative order which has civil consequences,
has to be a reasoned one and herein because vide order dated
10.07.2017 the prayer of the petitioner for grant of fourth year pay
structure stands denied, but obvious, it has civil consequences as
far as the petitioner is concerned, therefore, reasons ought to have
been assigned therein.
.
4. In these circumstances, without going into the merit of
the respective contentions of the parties, this petition is disposed of
by setting aside Annexure P-1, i.e. order dated 10.07.2017 on the
ground of same being a non speaking order, with direction to the
respondent-authorities to rehear the grievance of the petitioner and
thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order upon the same.
5. Principal Secretary (Language and Cultural Department)
to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is hereby directed to pass a
speaking and reasoned order after giving personal hearing to the
petitioner and the same be definitely passed within a period of six
weeks from today.
6. The Court observes that the contentions raised by the
petitioner be sympathetically considered by the said respondent and
it goes without saying that in case the petitioner is still aggrieved by
the order so passed, then he shall be at liberty to have such
recourse against it as is permissible in law.
7. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending
miscellaneous applications, if any.
September 10, 2021 (Ajay Mohan Goel)
(rishi) Judge
