Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.R Sehrawat vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 25 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125924
CWP-26837-2015 2023:PHHC:125924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207 CWP-26837-2015
Date of Decision :-25.09.2023
S.R. Sherawat ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the claim of the petitioner is that he is
entitled for the grade pay of Rs.8000/- as given to Additional Director
Agriculture instead of Rs.7600/-, which has been given to the post of Chief
Hydrologist.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the
claim has been raised by the petitioner on various grounds/facts but from the
impugned order, nothing can be made out as to on what grounds the relief
claimed by the petitioner has been declined hence, the impugned order is
totally cryptic and non-speaking and cannot be held to be valid in the eyes of
law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though,
nothing transpires from the impugned order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure
P/8) as to on what basis the relief claimed by the petitioner was declined on
the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, claim of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125924
CWP-26837-2015 2023:PHHC:125924
the petitioner qua the grant of grade pay of Rs.8000/ is not available with
the petitioner as the petitioner belongs to entirely different category of the
post from the post of Additional Director Agriculture.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. The claim of the petitioner is that the post of Chief Hydrologist
(Director), on which post the petitioner was working, is equivalent to the
post of Additional Director Agriculture and as the Additional Director
Agriculture has been granted the grade pay of Rs.8000/-, the petitioner be
given the same pay scale as admissible to the said of post Additional
Director Agriculture, which claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the
respondents vide impugned order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure P/8).
6. Bare perusal of the impugned order would show that no reason
has been mentioned so as to decline the claim of the petitioner. Once, a
claim has been raised on various facts/grounds, those facts need to be
discussed in the order so that the claimant should know as to what weighed
in the mind of the authority concerned while declining his/her claim. As per
the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No.457 of 1970 titled as Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs.
State of U.P. and others, decided on 02.04.1970, all administrative order
should be speaking in nature. It may be noticed that the same question of
law has also been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-7167-
1996 tiled as M/s Ram Rattan Aggarwal and Co. vs. State of Haryana,
decided on 24.07.1996. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as
under:-
13. In addition to the observations made and the directions
given in the various orders passed by this Court to which
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125924
CWP-26837-2015 2023:PHHC:125924
reference has been made hereinabove, we deem it proper to
reiterate the well established principles of law that every
quasi-judicial authority must give reasons in support of its
order in case such order adversely affects the rights or
interest of a person. The requirement of passing speaking
order by quasi-judicial authorities has been recognised as a
necessary concomitant of the requirement to comply with
the rules of natural justice. The reasons are links between
the maker of the order or the author of the decision and the
order itself. They indicate the process of application of
mind by the competent authority to the subject-matter
which is under consideration before it and also provides an
opportunity to the Court to find out whether any extraneous
or irrelevant factor has been taken into consideration for
arriving at a particular conclusion. In S.N. Mukherjee v.
Union of India, 1991(1) SCT 241 (SC) : 1990(4) SCC 584,
a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the
issue at length and after making reference to the Indian,
American, English and Australian laws on the subject, the
apex Court has held that except in cases of express
exclusion by statute or in cases where such exclusion can
be inferred from the nature of power exercised by the
quasi-judicial authority, every quasi-judicial authority must
act in consonance of the principles of natural justice and
must give reasons in support of its orders. Requirement of
recording of reasons even in the absence of statutory
provision has been held to be implied in Bhagat Raja v.
Union of India, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1606. In
Travancore Rayon Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1971
Supreme Court 871 and M/s. Mahabir Prasad v. State of
U.P., AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1031, the Supreme Court
has held that the reasons should not only be recorded but
must be communicated to the affected person."
7. Hence, the order impugned in the present petition is passed in a
manner contrary to the settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore.
8. Keeping in view the above, impugned order dated 27.07.2015
(Annexure P/8) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
respondents to pass an appropriate speaking order.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125924
CWP-26837-2015 2023:PHHC:125924
9. As the petitioner has already retired from service, it will be in
the interest of justice, if appropriate speaking order will be passed within a
period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
September 25, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125924
4 of 4
