“Reasoned Decision Is an Indispensable Part of Justice”: Orissa High Court Quashes Cancellation of Regularisation, Holds ‘Mechanical Orders Without Reasons Cannot Be Countenanced in Law’
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack set aside multiple orders issued by the Government of Odisha and the Puri Municipality that cancelled the regularisation of Class-IV employees. The Single Bench of Justice Murahari Sri Raman, held that the impugned instructions and subsequent cancellation orders lacked assigned reasons, violated the principles of natural justice, and were contrary to established administrative law.
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed that the order of regularisation dated 11 May 2011, read with corrigendum dated 13 May 2011, “is liable to be given effect to”. The Court further directed the respondents to determine the petitioners’ entitlements within three months and grant consequential service and financial benefits.
The petitioners, all temporary Class-IV employees of the Puri Municipality, approached the High Court challenging the legality of Government Letter No. 14449/HUD dated 13 June 2011 and Office Order Nos. 3239 and 4113 issued by the Puri Municipality on 13 May and 13 June 2011 respectively. These orders had kept in abeyance or cancelled earlier Office Orders dated 11 May 2011, which had regularised the petitioners’ services after more than a decade of continuous employment.
The petitioners contended that the cancellation orders were illegal, devoid of reasons, and issued without prior notice or opportunity of hearing. They submitted that their services had been regularised in accordance with the Finance Department’s Resolution dated 15 May 1997 and in pursuance of a duly published seniority list of temporary employees. They placed reliance on a series of internal meetings and bipartite agreements with employee associations that culminated in their regularisation.
On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that “time and again the Puri Municipality took decision to regularise the petitioners considering length of service and seniority in consonance with the norms specified in Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997” and that such regularisation was “against vacant posts”.
The opposite parties, despite repeated opportunities granted over several years, failed to file any counter-affidavit. The Court recorded that “no counter affidavit is forthcoming” and observed: “the opposite parties remained callous to justify their action by way of filing response.”
Citing the doctrine of non-traverse, the Court stated: “since the opposite parties have not filed the counter affidavit in the present case to controvert the contention raised in the writ application, the facts which have been pleaded by the petitioner are deemed to be admitted.”
The Court examined the sequence of orders and departmental instructions leading to the cancellation of regularisation. It noted that “no explanation has ever been furnished as to why the counter affidavit had not been filed. The opposite parties cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own mistake.”
It held that “the instruction imparted by the Government in Letter No.13.06.2011 is de hors material on record” and that “Order dated 13.05.2011 and subsequent Order dated 13.06.2011 of the Puri Municipality contrary to its resolutions... being devoid of reason, is amenable to judicial review.”
The Court observed: “Cryptic instructions of the Government contained in the Housing and Urban Development Department Letter dated 13.06.2011, pursuant to which mechanical Orders dated 13.05.2011 and 13.06.2011 were issued by the Puri Municipality without ascribing any reason... cannot be countenanced in law.”
Quoting judicial principles on reasoned decisions, the Court recorded: “Giving reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the authority itself.”
Referring to administrative duties, the Court stated: “Graver is the adverse effect of an action of a functionary of the Government, heavier is the obligation on the authority exercising such power to act fairly, reasonably, in a transparent manner and in conformity with the principles of natural justice.”
It further observed: “The Order dated 13.06.2011 of the Government of Odisha directing cancellation of order of regularisation... involves serious civil consequences and casts a slur and creates a barrier between the employees who have served the Puri Municipality since 1993/1995 and the Government.”
Addressing the issue of regularisation, the Court held: “Whereas it is discernible from Order dated 11.05.2011 read with Corrigendum Order dated 13.05.2011 that regularisation in services... were made ‘against vacant posts’ taking note of list of seniority... such a meticulous exercise by the Puri Municipality (appointing authority) cannot be said to be ‘unauthorised’.”
The Court made reference to prior judgments of the High Court involving similar facts and identical orders passed by the Puri Municipality. It noted that such orders had attained finality, and no material had been brought on record to suggest otherwise.
Based on the legal and factual matrix, the Court issued the following operative directions:
“This Court is inclined to exercise power under Article 226 to issue writ of certiorari by quashing the instruction contained in Housing and Urban Development Department Letter No.14449/MIS-41/2011/HUD, dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-13), and also the Puri Municipality Office Order dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure-14) and the Puri Municipality Office Order dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-15) for non-assigning reason.”
The Court added: “As a consequence thereof, the Order No.3171, dated 11.05.2011 (Annexure-11) read with Corrigendum dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure-12) regularising the services of the petitioners is liable to be given effect to.”
Further, the Court directed: “The opposite parties are liable to be issued with writ of mandamus and accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to work out the entitlement of the petitioners within a period of three months from today and grant all consequential service and financial benefits to the petitioners.”
The writ petition was disposed of without an order on costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Hrudananda Mohapatra, Asima Samantaray, M.R. Behera, Advocates
For the Respondents: Jayanta Kumar Bal (Additional Government Advocate), Santosh Kumar Brahma (Additional Standing Counsel), Pradipta Mohanty (Senior Advocate), assisted by Pranoy Mohanty, Sanjib Kumar Sahu, Prasannajit Pani
Case Title: Nabakishore Nayak and Others v. State of Odisha and Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011
Bench: Justice Murahari Sri Raman
[Read/Download order]
