Smt. Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko and 5 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2380

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7266 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Rekha Devi

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Lko And 5 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kudesia,Vikas Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Vikas Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

¶9

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a second wife of late Government Servant, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Verma, who died on 05.05.2021 and was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of State of U.P. It is state that during his life time, the deceased Government Servant, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Verma had married one Mamta Verma in the year 2001, who deserted him and never again lived with the deceased government servant. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that after the death of her husband, the petitioner had moved an appropriate application before the competent court for obtaining a succession certificate, which was issued in favour of the petitioner on 05.01.2022 immediately after issuance of a succession certificate, the petitioner had submitted the same in the office of Executive Engineer, Tube-Well Construction Division, Irrigation Department, Lucknow on 17.02.2022 praying that the petitioner should be given all the service benefits which had accrued late government servant as well as compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1974 considering the fact that the children of the petitioner were still

¶10

minor, despite the fact that no objection was filed by any person, yet the respondents have proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 07.06.2024.

¶11

A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 only indicates that a legal opinion was sought from the Chief Standing Counsel of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court and relying upon the said legal opinion as well as the provisions of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. There is no reason given as to what persuaded the authority to reject the representation, reason is the heartbeat of any order which discloses the application of mind by the competent authority and the grounds, if any, which were considered by authority for rejecting the said claim.

¶12

This Court in Writ - C No. 890 of 2022 - Smt. Darshan Devi @ Darshan Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others (decided on 25.03.2022) , while deciding the issue has held as under :

¶13

"Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others , reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held that reasons recorded in any order are the soul of the order without which an order is clearly vitiated. The relevant portions of aforesaid decision are as follows:-

¶14

"47.Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

¶15

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

¶16

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

¶17

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the

¶18

wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

¶19

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

¶20

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶21

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

¶22

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

¶23

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

¶24

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

¶25

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

¶26

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of

¶27

precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

¶28

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ?rubber-stamp reasons? is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

¶29

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decisionmakers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987)100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)

¶30

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, ?adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions?.

¶31

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of ?due process?."

¶32

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Apex Court has relied upon the judgment in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (supra) , where the Court has categorically held that unless "recording reasons" has been dispensed with by an administrative authority in exercise of judicial or quasi judicial functions, he/she is required to disclose reasons. The case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable, as no such provision has

¶33

been brought on record or evidence placed before this Court which can demonstrate that with regard to employee of the respondents, requirement of recording reasons has been dispensed with.

¶34

In absence of any reason, the order affecting the rights of any party cannot be sustained and accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 is bereft of any reason is held to be illegal and arbitrary and accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Executive Engineer, Tube-Well Division, Irrigation Department, Lucknow to pass a fresh order giving reasons while deciding the claim of the petitioner.

¶35

Let the fresh exercise be conducted expeditiously say within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy the order is produced before him in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶36

The writ petition is allowed in above terms.

¶37

[Alok Mathur,J.]

¶38

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 KR

¶39

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rekha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rekha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhubala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko and 4 Others

Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Om Prakash Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 5 Others

Surjan Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs U.P. Shashan Lko. and 4 Others

Pno No. 212230950 Mohit Lohiya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Jagdish Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health U.P. Lko. and 3 Others