DHARAM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working as a Clerk in the Land Claims Organisation of the Rehabilitation Department was aggrieved by the fixation of his pay. He represented. Vide order dated May 16,1988, the State Government accorded its sanction for the grant of one increment to the petitioner on the ground that he was senior to Mr. Lakhmi Chand. However, it was observed that the benefit will continue to be given to him upto August 5,1987. This was done on the ground that the petitioner had sought his transfer from the Land Claims Organisation after that date. The petitioner again represented. Vide order dated November 16,1992, the representation was "filed after consideration". Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's representation without assigning any reason is wholly illegal.

(3.) It is true that the petitioner had not filed the representation under any statutory provision. It is also correct that the authority was not performing a quasi judicial function. Accordingly, it was not mandatory for the authority to pass a speaking order. However, it is indisputable that the civil rights of the petitioner were involved. In this situation, it would have been appropriate for the authority to have indicated the reasons on account of which the representation was being rejected. If this had been done, it would have been possible for the petitioner to plead and show that the reasons which weighed with the authority were not legally tenable.