Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J., allowed a writ petition which was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order which had rejected the claim of the petitioner for revision and up-gradation of the pay-scale of the post of Private Secretary in the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority in the pay-scale of Rs 15600- 39100 with Grade Pay of Rs 5,400 from the date of promotion and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise and upgrade the pay-scale of the petitioner of Private Secretary to Rs 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs 5,400 from the pay scale of Rs 9300- 34800 with Grade Pay of Rs 4,600.
Petitioner was appointed as a Personal Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs 5500-9000 in the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority and was promoted to the post of Private Secretary in the pay-scale of Rs 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs 4600. Department of Finance, Government of Uttarakhand sanctioned the structure of stenographer cadre in Government departments, but the said staffing pattern did not contain the post of Private Secretary, to ventilate his grievance, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Member Secretary, Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority seeking upgradation of the pay-scale of Private Secretary in the pay-scale of Rs 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs 5400.
The counsel for the petitioner, Mr Vinay Kumar submitted that the order was not sustainable as the same was cryptic and unreasoned.
The Court observed that the order seemed to be passed without taking into consideration the recommendations made by respondent 3 and it also stated that the work of the Private Secretary whether he was in the High Court, in the office of the Advocate General or in the office of Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, was similar and since work assigned to the petitioner on the post of Private Secretary is the same as assigned to the Private Secretaries in the High Court as well as in the office of the Advocate General, the respondents had no authority to discriminate the petitioner from the same pay-scale.
The Court allowed the petition and relied on the judgment of State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 SCC 670 where it was held that,
“18. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts’ clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided.
- Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system.
- We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes.”
[Sayendra Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 130, decided on 06-01-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together