JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether direction of the Court to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of service can be rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without assigning any reason.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of collection peon on 31.5.1984 on ad hoc basis. He continued till 25.4.1990 with two breaks in service. His service was terminated on 25.4.1990, under U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. He filed C.M. Writ No. 17713 of 1990, in which' the termination order was challenged. It was claimed that under Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended by Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on the posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (IInd Amendment) Rules, 1989 (in brief Rules) the petitioner's services were liable to be regularised. Therefore, the order terminating his services without considering his claim for regularisatlon was contrary to law.
The termination order was stayed on 20.7.1990. But the respondent did not comply with it. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 786 of 1990.
The petition was not decided as the Court was of the view that stay vacation application be decided first.
The writ petition was dismissed on 30.4.1997. This was challenged in Special Appeal No. 627 of 1997 which was disposed of on 1.9.1997. The relevant direction of the division bench is quoted below :
"The Competent Authority will consider the case of the petitioner-appellant for regularisation of service in accordance with the aforementioned Rules without being influenced by and notwithstanding the order of termination of service and communicate the order within three months of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
The writ petition and the Special Appeal are disposed of in the manner aforesaid. The Competent Authority may give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant if he feels it necessary."
3. It is alleged in the writ petition that the order was communicated immediately but when no order was passed, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court again by way of Contempt Petition No. 1084 of 1998 which is still pending.
4. The respondent by his order dated 12.3.1999 rejected the claim of the petitioner.
5. This Court directed the respondent to consider the claim of petitioner for regularisation of service in accordance with Rules (Rules 1989). The impugned order does not disclose as to why petitioner's service cannot be regularised under the Rules. From the order, it appears that the respondent has treated the letter 24.9.1997 by which the judgment was communicated as representation. This shows complete non-application of mind. He was directed by this Court to decide the claim of regularisation and not representation. It is further surprising that the respondent decided the claim after 18 months when the order was communicated in 1997. This was failure to discharge the duty by the respondent but I do not propose to say any thing further as if I call for a counter-affidavit, it will further delay -the matter.
6. The argument of learned standing counsel that since there was no direction by this Court to pass a reasoned order, the respondent did not commit any illegality or impropriety. The argument is without any merit.
7. When this Court directs an authority to decide the claim or representation, then the concerned authority should decide it by a speaking or reasoned order. Even if the judgment or order of this Court does not mention that the claim has to be decided by a speaking or by a reasoned order, then it is implicit in the order and the authority is under legal duty to give reasons in support of the order. He cannot take shelter on the opinion of the State counsel which may serve as a guideline for him but it cannot form the basis of the order.
8. The petitioner's counsel has placed reliance on Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SCCP 361, that the petitioners regularisation cannot be rejected due to artificial breaks in service. The law has already been settled by the Apex Court, therefore, it is not necessary to say anything further. This aspect shall also be examined by the respondent.
9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 12.3.1999 Annexure-8 to the writ petition is quashed. The respondent is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for regularisation as directed in Special Appeal No. 627 of 1997 and in the light of the observations made above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment before him.