TARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has retired as a member of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on 31st October, 1986, on attaining the age of superannuation. Under Rule 8.13 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume I, Part I, his entitlement to leave on various counts, that is, earned leave, half pay leave, commuted leave, leave not due and extraordinary leave, is governed. In addition to that, he was also entitled to leave encashment benefit for 180 days under Rule 8.21 of the aforesaid Rules, but he was granted this benefit only for two months as he had already availed some leave in 1975 on medical ground. He represented for conversion of earned leave into commuted leave but the same was rejected on 13th March, 1987. Another representation made on 15th May, 1987, was also rejected by the High Court on the administrative side on 24th August, 1987. In none of the orders rejecting the representations, any reason was disclosed as to what weighed with the authorities at the time of declining the request. Aggrieved against that, the petitioner again represented for review of the decision on 8th March, 1988, placing reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Deoki Nandan Aggarwal v. Union of India, 1987 AIR(All) 108 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra v. Union of India (C.W.P. No. 764 of 1987), decided on 30th July, 1987. A copy of the judgment in Satish Chandra's case has also been enclosed as Annexure P.6 with the writ petition, relevant para whereof is reproduced below :-

(2.) In the written statement, though the factual position has been admitted, yet the petitioner is sought to be non-suited on the ground that the petitioner never requested for a hearing and his representations were considered and rejected in accordance with the rules. It has further been pleaded that since the request of the petitioner had been made after lapse of 3 years subsequent to the date of his retirement, the writ petition did not merit any consideration.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the stand taken by the respondent the State of Punjab and the High Court on the administrative side, cannot be appreciated. If the claim of the petitioner which, according to him, is based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the statutory service rules permit him certain benefit, then whether he has approached after 3 years or had not requested for a personal hearing was of no consequence. It was the duty of the respondents to consider the case on merits and communicate the decision to the petitioner disclosing reasons in support of the decision. A wholly non-speaking and cryptic order could not be countenanced, as in fact it was not a decisionat all, but only an intimation, bringing to the notice of the officer, the conclusion arrived at, and not the reasons in support of the conclusion.