PAVAN KUMAR GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vijay Gautam and learned Standing Counsel. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 14-03-08 passed by respondent no. 1, annexure-1 to the writ petition rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. The father of the petitioner was working and died in harness. At the time of death, the petitioner was minor as such, he could not make an application for appointment under the Dying In Harness Rules. When he became major, he made an application in the year, 2005 and further an application was made in the year, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an explanation was given by the petitioner regarding filing the application beyond 5 years but the respondent while considering the claim of the petitioner has not considered the same and has not assigned any reason as to under what circumstances the application filed by the petitioner is being rejected. Further submission has been made that the administrative authorities are also bound to record reasons while rejecting the claim of a person. Reliance has been placed on the case of S.N. Mukherji Vs. Union of India (A.I.R.1990 S.C. 1984),Taking support of the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case no reason has been recorded it will be presumed that the order passed by the respondent is an order of non- application of mind without assigning any reason. Further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the amendment dated 08-09-06 in the Regulation, 1964 Rule 5(1)(3), it has specifically been stated that if any application is made beyond five years after giving reasons, then the authorities concerned while considering the claim are bound to record reasons as to why the application filed by the person concerned is being rejected. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel is not able to justify the order passed by respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the order dated 14-03-08 it clearly appears that no reason has been recorded by the respondent while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Apex Court judgment it will be treated that the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is an order of non-application of mind without assigning any reason, as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14-03-08 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 1 to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and in view of the amendment made in 2007 within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. No order is passed as to costs.