Commissioner, Department of Finance, Old v. Secretariat Buildings, Hardinge Road, Patna
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12256 of 1996 ====================================================== Sushil Kumar Mishra, son of Late Sri Sarvdeo Mishra, resident of village & P.O. Mohammadpur, P.S. Manjhi, District Saran. .... .... Petitioner 1. The State of Bihar 2. Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Finance, Old Versus Secretariat Buildings, Hardinge Road, Patna-15. 3. Joint Director, National Savings, Department of Finance, Old Secretariat Buildings, Hardinge Road, Patna-15. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1333 of 1997 ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar Singh, son of Late Ram Ayodhya Singh, resident of village Kharika, P.O. Kharika and P.S. Sonepur, District Chapra. .... .... Petitioner 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, National Saving, Department of Finance, Versus Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, District Patna. 3. The Joint Director, National Saving, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. District National Saving Executive Officer, Dhanbad.
Decision
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== (In CWJC No.12256 of 1996) For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anjani Kumar, A.A.G.10 with Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, AC to AAG-10. (In CWJC No.1333 of 1997) For the Petitioner : Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Y.P. Sinha, AAG-15 with Mr. Shankar Kumar, AC to AAG-15. ====================================================== P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORDER 10 22-03-2013 Both the aforesaid writ petitions were made analogous and had been heard together and are being decided by this common order because the facts are similar, the points to be considered are exactly the same and the respondents concerned in Patna High Court CWJC No.12256 of 1996 (10) dt.22-03-2013 2 both the cases are also the same. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases. 3. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 01.10.1996 by which they were reverted from Class-III posts to Class-IV posts of Peon on the same ground i.e. failing to get required marks in the typewriting test. Another prayer was made in both the writ petitions challenging the orders of their transfer. The said second relief sought by the petitioners has become infructuous due to lapse of time as the petitioners were transferred as far back as in the year 1997 i.e. more than one and half decades back. 4. From the facts and circumstances it transpires that the Department of Finance (National Savings), Government of Bihar vide separate orders all dated 01.10.1996 reverted the petitioners of both the writ petitions as well as one Priya Kant, who had challenged his reversion vide CWJC No.11365 of 1996. All the aforesaid reversions were by the same authority exactly on the same grounds. 5.The aforesaid CWJC No.11365 of 1996 filed by Priya Kant was dismissed by a bench of this court vide order dated 18.11.2010 against which the said writ petitioner Priya Patna High Court CWJC No.12256 of 1996 (10) dt.22-03-2013 3 Kant filed L.P.A. No.366 of 2011, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 21.01.2013. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:- “A litigant who is granted relief may not be much interested in knowing the reasons. It is that litigant denied relief who stops to read the order. He first wants to be satisfied that the Court understood his case. In that event he would be better able to appreciate the reason for denial of relief. But if his contentions have not been properly considered and refused by a reasoned order, it will leave him with a sense of injustice. Reasons have therefore been held to be an integral part of judicial decision making and are not restricted in its applicability to administrative or quasi-judicial orders only. The importance of a reasoned speaking judicial order was emphasized in (2004) 5 SCC 568 (State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar) holding : “8…….Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has salutary gone against him. One of requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The “inscrutable the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” face of the the conditions of We are not impressed with the submission made on behalf of the State that once the appellant accepted the appointment incorporating the need to pass the test, the contract binds the parties. That the appellant unsuccessfully appeared on more than one occasion disentitles him to necessary consequential relief. We are satisfied to hold that the condition imposed in the appointment letter being contrary to Rule-148 of the Rules was itself void and non est. Patna High Court CWJC No.12256 of 1996 (10) dt.22-03-2013 4 The government policy for compassionate appointment itself provides for such appointment on class III and IV posts. The petitioner was appointed on a Class III post and then reverted. He does not seek directions for appointment on a class III post. The conclusion to that effect of the writ Court is also not sustainable. The order dated 1.10.1996 is set aside. In (1998) 4 SCC 114 (Bimal Kumari Vs. State of Haryana) granting consequential relief after setting aside the order of illegal reversion consequential relief including arrears of salary was directed which we follow : “10…..The appellant shall be allowed to continue on the post of Superintendent and shall be paid all consequential benefits, including the arrears of salary….” The order to be complied with within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The records of the said L.P.A. have been called. A perusal of the said records in comparison with the records of the instant two writ petitions clearly disclosed the facts that the appellant of the L.P.A as well as the petitioners of these two writ petitions were appointed in the same manner and their conditions of service for Class-III posts were also the same. It also transpires that the reasons for their respective reversion from Class-III posts to Class-IV posts of Peon were also the same. In the said circumstances, the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this court squarely covers these two cases also. 7. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are allowed Patna High Court CWJC No.12256 of 1996 (10) dt.22-03-2013 5 and the impugned orders dated 01.10.1996 challenged therein are hereby quashed. Since the illegal reversion of the petitioners has been set aside, all the consequential benefits including the arrears of salary etc. for the concerned period must be given to the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Harish/- (S.N. Hussain, J)