Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24431
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Nawabuddin Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 10289 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishabh Dev Sahu, Abhishek Pandey
For the Respondents: H.A.P.S. Bhatia
Administrative authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders when rejecting applications; non-speaking orders are legally unsustainable and subject to being quashed by the court.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Speaking Orders - Rejection of an application for pay fixation by passing an unreasoned and non-speaking order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's application for pay fixation were valid despite being non-speaking and unreasoned.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the validity of non-speaking orders regarding pay fixation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. requirement of reasoned orders in administrative decisions and subsequent remand for fresh consideration. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
Digitally signed by ADITI ADITI DIWAN DIWAN KAIWART KAIWARTDate:
2026.08.19 11:09:46 +0530
CGHC010404552019 2026:CGHC:36513
NAFR
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
Order On Board
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure P/7), passed by respondent No.3 & order dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure P/9), passed by respondent No.2 and to direct the respondent authorities to give the benefit of pay fixation to the petitioner from 14.10.1993 to 31.12.2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application dated 11.10.2017 for fixation of pay scale has been rejected by the respondent authority by passing an unreasoned and non-speaking order, which is absolutely unjustified and uncalled for. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection.
5. Admittedly, the application preferred by the petitioner for fixation of pay scale has been dismissed by the respondent authority without assigning any reason and by passing a non-speaking order. In that view of the matter, the non- speaking and unreasoned order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure P/7) & order dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure P/9) are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the concerned respondent authority for considering and deciding the application filed by the petitioner afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
