2015 (9) TMI 1769 - HC - Indian Laws

Leave without pay or as periods on duty for the petitioner - Grievance of the petitioner is that the intervening period beyond the sanctioned maternity leave period has not been regularized by the respondents nor has she been granted salary benefits during the said period - Non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned order as well as the report of the State Government does not give any explanation for the three periods which have been treated as leave without pay and extraordinary leave. The impugned order thus being a non speaking order and the respondents having failed to give any justification or plausible explanation for the said order the same cannot be held to be proper legal and justified and deserves to be set aside. Once the matter was sent back to the authorities concerned especially by the High Court the Authorities should have taken extra care while deciding the claim of the petitioner and ought to have given reasons and the provisions of the Rules under which the order was being passed. The impugned order does not disclose application of mind to the grievance and contentions of the petitioner. The authority was duty bound to give independent conclusions on his decisions. Specific reasons should have been given on his findings. In the case of EAST COAST RAILWAY ANR. VERSUS MAHADEV APPA RAO ORS. 2010 (7) TMI 967 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms has held that Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order. Conclusion - The authority concerned is directed to decide the periods i.e. 16.10.1987 to 13.04.1988 16.10.1989 to 09.08.1991 and 11.10.1994 to 12.10.1995 afresh taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is expected that this time the Authorities concerned shall be more careful while deciding the case of the petitioner and shall decide the same objectively giving the reasons to their findings so arrived within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The impugned order deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Authority concerned for passing an order afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

• Whether the authorities acted arbitrarily in treating certain periods of the petitioner's absence as leave without pay and extraordinary leave.
• Whether the impugned order, which failed to provide reasons for its decisions, is legally sustainable.
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary benefits for the periods she was willing to work but was not allowed to join her duties.
• Whether the authorities complied with the directives given by the court in the previous writ petition.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Arbitrary Treatment of Leave Periods

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court refers to the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, and precedents set by the Supreme Court regarding the necessity of reasoned orders.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the authorities did not provide any justification for treating certain periods as leave without pay and extraordinary leave, despite treating other similar periods as on duty.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The impugned order lacked reasons and was deemed a non-speaking order, which failed to demonstrate the application of mind.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of reasoned decision-making and found the order arbitrary and unsustainable.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued for uniform treatment of all periods, while the respondents failed to provide a counter-argument or justification.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the order was arbitrary and deserved to be set aside.

Issue 2: Legal Sustainability of the Impugned Order

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court emphasizing the need for recording reasons in orders (East Coast Railway and Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others; Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers).
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court highlighted that the absence of reasons in the impugned order indicated arbitrariness, making it legally unsustainable.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The impugned order and the state government's report failed to provide explanations for the decisions made.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that orders must disclose the rationale behind decisions to avoid arbitrariness.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not provide any substantial arguments to counter the petitioner's claims.
• Conclusions: The court set aside the impugned order due to its lack of reasoning.

Issue 3: Entitlement to Salary Benefits

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court considered the petitioner's entitlement to salary benefits based on the principle of fairness and the absence of valid reasons for denying her joining.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner was willing to work but was arbitrarily denied the opportunity, entitling her to salary benefits for the disputed periods.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's willingness to work and the lack of justification for denying her joining were crucial factors.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied fairness principles to determine the petitioner's entitlement to salary benefits.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not provide any valid reasons to justify the denial of salary benefits.
• Conclusions: The court implied that the petitioner is entitled to salary benefits for the disputed periods, subject to a fresh decision by the authorities.

Issue 4: Compliance with Previous Court Directives

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court emphasized the need for compliance with its previous directives.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the authorities failed to comply with its earlier directives to reconsider the petitioner's case with reasoned decisions.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The authorities' failure to provide reasons and comply with the court's directives was evident.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle of adherence to judicial directives.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not adequately address the court's previous directives.
• Conclusions: The court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the authorities to comply with its previous directives.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order."
• Core Principles Established: Orders must be reasoned to avoid arbitrariness; compliance with judicial directives is mandatory; fairness in employment decisions is crucial.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the authorities to provide reasoned decisions within three months.