Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/3285/2017 on 6 January, 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE LOK PAL SINGH
WRIT PETITOIN (S/S) NO.3285 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Sayendra Singh Rawat,
S/o Late Sri P.S. Rawat,
Presently posted as Private Secretary,
Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority,
Nainital.
.....Petitioner.
(By ShriVinay Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Uttarakhand, through Principal
Secretary, Law & Justice/Legal Remembrance,
Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
2. Additional Secretary, Law/Additional L.R.,
Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
(By ShriNarainDutt, learned Brief Holder for the
State/respondent nos.1 and 2).
3. Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority,
through its Member Secretary, Nainital.
(By ShriAdityaPratap Singh, Advocate for
respondent no.3).
.....Respondents.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ
of certiorari to quash/setting aside the impugned
order/communication dated 05.09.2017, issued by
respondent no.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner
for revision and upgradation of the pay-scale of the
post of Private Secretary in the Uttarakhand State
Legal Services Authority in th pay-scale of Rs.15600-
39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- from the date
of promotion of the petitioner has been rejected, and
a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
revise and upgrade the pay-scale of the petitioner of
Private Secretary to Rs.15600-39100/- with Grade
Pay of Rs.5,400/- from the pay-scale of Rs.9300-
34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- w.e.f.
01.09.2015, when the petitioner was promoted, along
with difference of salary.
2. Facts, in brief, are that on 09.06.2009, the
petitioner was appointed as a Personal Assistant in
the pay-scale of R.5500-9000 in the Uttarakhand
State Legal Services Authority. On 04.09.2015, the
petitioner was promoted to the post of Private
Secretary in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with
grade pay of Rs.4600/-. It is the case of the petitioner
that on 08.03.2011, the Department of Finance,
Government of Uttarakhand sanctioned the structure
of stenographer cadre in Government departments,
but the said staffing pattern did not contain the post
of Private Secretary. Thereafter, on 18.06.2016 to
ventilate his grievance, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the Member Secretary, Uttarakhand
State Legal Services Authority seeking upgradation of
the pay-scale of Private Secretary in the pay-scale of
Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. In the
said representation, the petitioner pointed out that
the post of Private Secretary in the High Court and
the State Government carries the pay scale of
Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.6600/-,
whereas the said post in the office of Advocate
General carried the pay-scale of Rs.5400/-. The said
representation of the petitioner was recommended by
respondent no.3. Thereafter, on 03.12.2016 and
07.06.2017, respondent no.3 sent communications to
the Secretary, Law, Government of Uttarakhand as
regards upgradation of the pay scale of the post of
Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100
with grade pay of Rs.5400, wherein it was also
mentioned that the issue pertains to upgradation and
not the pay anomaly. It was, thereafter, pointed out
that by the Government Order dated 14.07.2016, the
cadre structure of Chief Personal Assistant was
revised from three tier system to four tier system,
whereby the post of Chief Personal Assistant in the
pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of
Rs.5400 was created. In the communication dated
03.12.2016, by taking reference of the Government
Order dated 14.07.2016, it was stated that in the
Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, the post
of Private Secretary exists which is of higher category
than the post of Chief Personal Assistant, and
therefore, there is no justification for placing the post
of Private Secretary in Uttarakhand State Legal
Services Authority in the pay scale of Rs.9300-38400
with grade pay of Rs.4600. It was also stated that the
post of Private Secretary does not exist in the
Collectorate or the office of the Divisional
Commissioner. When nothing was done on the said
representation, another representation was submitted
by the petitioner to the office of respondent no.3.
Thereafter, a reminder was sent by respondent no.3
on 07.06.2017 to respondent no.1 along with a copy
of the representation dated 18.05.2017. Respondent
no.2 vide communication dated 05.09.2017 informed
respondent no.3 that the Finance Department of the
Government has treated the post of Private Secretary
to be in parity with the stenographer cadre and
therefore, has opined that it will not be possible to
upgrade the pay scale.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the order dated 05.09.2017 is not sustainable as
the same is cryptic and unreasoned order. The same
was passed without taking into consideration the
recommendation made by respondent no.3 and
hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
4. The same is disputed by the learned Brief
Holder appearing for the State. He contends that the
order dated 05.09.2017 is just and proper and has
been passed in consultation with the Finance
Department of the State Government. Creation of
posts and the departmental structuring are done
through separate service rules and one common
arrangement cannot be made applicable in all the
departments and there is no evidence furnished to
substantiate the fact that there is similarity between
the concerned authority and the High Court.
Thereafter, the State has relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of
Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh", reported in (2017) 1
SCC 148 to contend that the onus to establish the
discrimination by the employer lies on the person
claiming the parity of pay.
5. This Court is not impressed by the
contentions advanced by the learned Brief Holder
appearing for the State.
6. From the perusal of the order dated
05.09.2017, it appears that the same has been
passed without taking into consideration the
recommendations made by respondent no.3. Even
otherwise, the work of a Private Secretary whether he
is in the High Court, in the office of the Advocate
General or in the office of Uttarakhand State Legal
Services Authority, is similar.
7. Since the work assigned to the petitioner on
the post of Private Secretary is the same as assigned
to the Private Secretaries in the High Court as well as
in the office of the Advocate General, the respondents
have no authority to discriminate the petitioner from
the same pay-scale. It is apt to note that the
recommendation made by respondent no.3 has force,
and no reason has been assigned by respondent no.2
while denying the claim to the petitioner that why the
recommendations made by respondent no.3 are not
applicable. The order dated 05.09.2017 has been
passed in a cryptic manner and no reason has been
assigned.
8. It is settled proposition in law that the
reasons to record in a judgment are life of law and in
absence thereof, judgment cannot be said to be legal.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of
Uttaranchal & another vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish&
others", reported in (2011) 8 SCC 670, held as
under:-
"18. Judicial determination has to be seen as
an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication
initiated and documented by a party based, on
mainly events which happened in the past. Courts'
clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements
in a judicial determination when parties demand it so
that they can administer justice justly and correctly,
in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial
decision must be perceived by the parties and by the
society at large, as being the result of a correct and
proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of
the evidence adduced and application of legal
procedure. The parties should be convinced that
their case has been properly considered and
decided.
19. Judicial decisions must in principle be
reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision
depends principally on the quality of its reasoning.
Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which
should not be sacrificed for expediency. The
statement of reasons not only makes the decision
easier for the parties to understand and many a
times such decisions would be accepted with
respect. The requirement of providing reasons
obliges the judge to respond to the parties'
submissions and to specify the points that justify the
decision and make it lawful and it enables the
society to understand the functioning of the judicial
system and it also enhances the faith and confidence
of the people in the judicial system.
20. We are sorry to say that the judgment in
question does not satisfy the above standards set for
proper determination of disputes. Needless to say
these types of orders weaken our judicial system.
Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality
of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and
confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the
direct experience of citizens from the judicial
adjudication of their disputes.
9. In view of the above, respondent no.2
should have considered the recommendations of
respondent no.3 and should have passed the order
thereafter. Since no reason has been assigned while
passing the order dated 05.09.2017, the impugned
order dated 05.09.2017 is unsustainable in the eyes
of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and
the order dated 05.09.2017 is quashed. The
respondents are directed to re-consider the case of
the petitioner in the light of the recommendation
made by respondent no.3, within a period of six
weeks from today.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
NISHANT
