SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(UK) 581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Lok Pal Singh, J.
Sayendra Singh Rawat - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3285 of 2017
Decided On : 06-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
ShriVinay Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; ShriAdityaPratap Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The importance of providing reasons in a judgment and the requirement for proper reasoning in judicial decisions.

Headnote:

Certiorari - Pay-scale Upgradation - Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority - 15600-39100, 9300-34800 - The court discussed the recommendations made by respondent no.3, the similarity of work of a Private Secretary in different offices, and the lack of reasoning in the impugned order. The court highlighted the importance of providing reasons in a judgment and quashed the impugned order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting the revision and upgradation of the pay-scale of the post of Private Secretary in the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner was appointed as a Personal Assistant and later promoted to the post of Private Secretary, seeking upgradation of the pay-scale based on the staffing pattern and pay scales in other offices.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order was passed without considering the recommendations made by respondent no.3 and lacked reasoning. It emphasized the similarity of work of a Private Secretary in different offices and the importance of providing reasons in a judgment.

Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's claim for pay-scale upgradation and the lack of reasoning in the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the work assigned to the petitioner on the post of Private Secretary is similar to that assigned in other offices, and the lack of reasoning in the impugned order rendered it unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 05.09.2017 was quashed. The respondents were directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the recommendation made by respondent no.3, within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment.

ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash/setting aside the impugned order/communication dated 05.09.2017, issued by respondent no.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for revision and upgradation of the pay-scale of the post of Private Secretary in the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority in th pay-scale of Rs. 15600-39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- from the date of promotion of the petitioner has been rejected, 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/- w.e.f. 01.09.2015, when the petitioner was promoted, along with difference of salary.

2. Facts, in brief, are that on 09.06.2009, the petitioner was appointed as a Personal Assistant in the pay-scale of R.5500-9000 in the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority. On 04.09.2015, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Private Secretary in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600/-. It is the case of the petitioner that on 08.03.2011, the 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. Thereafter, on 18.06.2016 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/-. In the said representation, the petitioner pointed out that the post of Private Secretary in the High Court and the State Government carries the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.6600/-, whereas the said post in the office of Advocate General carried the pay-scale of Rs.5400/-. The said representation of the petitioner was recommended by respondent no.3. Thereafter, on 03.12.2016 and 07.06.2017, respondent no.3 sent communications to the Secretary, Law, Government of Uttarakhand as regards upgradation of the pay scale of the post of Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400, wherein it was also mentioned that the issue pertains to upgradation and not the pay anomaly. It was, thereafter, pointed out that by the Government Order dated 14.07.2016, the cadre structure of Chief Personal Assistant was revised from three tier system to four tier system, whereby the post of Chief Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400 was created. In the communication dated 03.12.2016, by taking reference of the Government Order dated 14.07.2016, it was stated that in the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, the post of Private Secretary exists which is of higher category than the post of Chief Personal Assistant, and therefore, there is no justification for placing the post of Private Secretary in Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority in the pay scale of Rs.9300-38400 with grade pay of Rs.4600. It was also stated that the post of Private Secretary does not exist in the Collectorate or the office of the Divisional Commissioner. When nothing was done on the said representation, another representation was submitted by the petitioner to the office of respondent no.3. Thereafter, a reminder was sent by respondent no.3 on 07.06.2017 to respondent no.l along with a copy of the representation dated 18.05.2017. Respondent no.2 vide communication dated 05.09.2017 informed respondent no.3 that the Finance Department of the Government has treated the post of Private Secretary to be in parity with the stenographer cadre and therefore, has opined that it will not be possible to upgrade the pay scale.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 05.09.2017 is not sustainable as the same is cryptic and unreasoned orde

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    AI

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top