HC pulls up state for ‘mechanical orders’, imposes Rs 50K costs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped Haryana for "tendency to pass mechanical orders without any application of mind," while making it clear that such propensity was required to be curbed. The admonition came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj imposed Rs 50,000 costs on the Director, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.

Advertisement

The Bench made it clear that the cost was being imposed for “generating useless and unnecessary litigation which involved no dispute at all and could have been resolved on a mere plain reading of the statutory provision”.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Vijay Kumar after his plea for pay protection was rejected. Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench was told that Kumar was selected as an Agribusiness Manager through the Haryana Staff Selection Commission in 2010. He was selected as an Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) in 2012, following which he submitted a technical resignation to join the new post. But his request for pay protection, based on Rule 10 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016, was turned down.

Justice Bhardwaj said the rejection of the petitioner’s claim was based on a "misreading of plain statutory provisions enshrined in Rule 10". The court found that the petitioner had applied for the ADO post in 2009, a year before he was appointed Agribusiness Manager, and therefore, "there was no occasion for the petitioner to move the application through the proper channel." The court held that the authorities had mechanically denied pay protection without applying their minds.

"Having considered the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the respective parties, I find that such a mechanical adjudication of the claim of the petitioner by the respondent-department reflects a tendency of the authorities to pass mechanical orders without any application of mind, which needs to be curbed," he asserted.

The court made it clear that "conscious decisions are required to be taken by an officer of the rank of Director, who has authored/approved such decisions."

“The admissible benefits shall be released to the petitioner within a further period of two months thereafter failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the overdue amount at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The additional expense of interest and costs may be recovered from the erring officials,” it concluded.