Maninder Kumar vs State of Punjab and others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral) - Mr. Manuja has filed an affidavit in Court today which is taken on record. Copy has been given to Mr. Chaudhary who has read it an is prepared to address arguments for final disposal of the matter.

This order will govern connected cases i.e. CWP No. 19166 of 2015 titled Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others and CWP No.19274 of 2015 titled Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab and others mutatis mutandis.

Heard Mr. Chaudhary and Mr. Manuja appearing for the respective parties on the legality and validity of the impugned order dated December 17, 2014 at Annex P-18 to the petition. This order has been passed in response to the legal notice served by the petitioner on the respondents on October 30, 2014 at Annex P-16. The grounds taken in the legal notice to claim relief of regularisation of services w.e.f. 1993 have neither been addressed, nor dealt with nor decided in the impugned order for which reason the order cannot be sustained being non-speaking. All that the Executive Engineer, Electricity Division, Punjab, PWD, BandR Branch, Chandigarh has done is to refer to the award of the Labour Court dated September 12, 2003 vide which the petitioner was reinstated to service with continuity but instead of back wages he was awarded only RS. 10,000/- as lump sum payment. The present impugned order has been passed as though all that was required to be done was implementation of the award. It is not so. It is not the correct position on file. The order cannot be taken as one passed on grounds taken in the legal notice to claim relief which notice is not award based but is based on rights arising out of the directions in the award which reinstates the petitioner to his original position prevailing on the date when his services were terminated on June 01, 1994.

Mr. Manuja has been hard pressed to support the order as it contains no reasons whatsoever. The necessity for recording reasons while passing orders adverse to the interest of supplicant party has been held to be a necessity of fundamental importance to the rule of law. See the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984. The necessity of passing reasoned and informed administrative orders has become a duty of competent authorities when called upon to decide upon the rights of of aggrieved persons.

For the patent defects and grave shortcomings found on the face of the impugned order the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and has therefore to be set aside. The petition is allowed. Consequently, a direction is issued to the competent authority to pass a comprehensive order containing reasons while dealing with and deciding all the issues raised in the legal notice. Let the fresh order be passed within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after calling the petitioners and affording them an effective opportunity of hearing.

The order to be passed be produced on the file of this case and connected cases for the perusal of the Court for which purpose these cases are adjourned to 20.07.2016. Office to list case on date fixed.