The High Court quashed an order denying the petitioner benefits due to lack of opportunity of personal hearing and absence of adequate reasons, remitting the matter for a fresh reasoned order.
Impugned order dated 06.11.2012 is quashed; matter remitted to respondent no.3 to pass fresh reasoned order after hearing within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 743 of 2013
Kuldip Mishra ..… Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Dev, A.C. to S.C. (L& C) III ---------
07/Dated: 17th February, 2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 06.11.2012; whereby the respondent no. 3 had denied the claim of the petitioner for benefit of B.Sc. Trained Scale w.e.f. 18.12.1984 along with other consequential benefits.
3. From record it appears that this is third round of litigation and the petitioner lastly moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2199 of 2012, wherein the case was disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to treat the writ application as representation and dispose of the claim of the petitioner after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. Para 3 of the said judgment is quoted herein below;
“3. In view of these submissions, I hereby direct respondent no.2 (The Deputy Commissioner-cum-
2
Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa) or any officer, who is well conversant with the facts and law or any authorized and competent officer, appointed by respondent no.2, to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. Respondent no.2 or such authorized officer, who is deciding the claim of the petitioner, shall consider the allegations levelled in paragraph 14 of the memo of the petition that other similarly situated persons have been given trained scale with effect from 1st April, 1987 and also keeping in mind the fact that the present petitioner has cleared training examination on 18th December, 1984, which has been stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the memo of the petition.”
4. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to this petitioner nor any reason has been assigned in denying the statement made in para 14 of the earlier writ application that similarly situated persons have been given B.Sc. trained scale w.e.f. 1st April, 1987.
5. Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the respondentState though oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant writ application, but could not demonstrate that any notice was issued to this petitioner for personal hearing
3
and further he cannot defend the impugned order, inasmuch as, the same does not contain detail reasons.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 dated 06.11.2012 is quashed and set aside, inasmuch as, the concerned respondent had neither afforded any opportunity of hearing to this petitioner nor the order is specific, clear and reasoned. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3 who shall issue notice to this petitioner asking for his reply and after giving proper opportunity of hearing pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order as directed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2199 of 2012 in true letter and spirit.
It is made clear that the petitioner is forced into repeated litigations since 1999 and the issue is very old, as such the respondent no. 3 is directed to pass the fresh order after giving proper opportunity within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order denying B.Sc. Trained Scale benefits was legal absent a personal hearing and reasoned explanation.
Whether the respondent is directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after affording proper opportunity of hearing.
Whether the petitioner is forced into repeated litigation and entitled to a speedy disposal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(S) No. 2199 of 2012Followed¶3
W.P.(S) No. 2199 of 2012
Kuldip Mishra
State of Jharkhand
Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand
Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Garhwa
District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Parties & counsel