Suraj Prasad Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 31.5.1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Under Secretary of the State Government whereby his representation for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension under the U. P. Freedom Fighters Grant of Pension Rules, 1975, has been rejected.

Apparently, the order impugned in the writ petition does not contain any reason and for this simple reason, this order of rejection of the representation cannot be sustained. Learned standing counsel has tried to justify the impugned order on the basis that standing counsel may be granted time to file counter-affidavit wherein they will give the reasons for refusing the payment of political pension to the petitioner. Even if such a statement is made in the counter-affidavit, then also in view of the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, , reason, if at all, has to be given, is to be given in the impugned order and cannot be sustained by filing an affidavit or producing the record.

In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 31st May, 1996, passed by the Under Secretary of the State Government (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.