Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)
Mohammad Ali vs General Manager, N E Rly on 3 May, 2019 cites

Chairman, D.A.,Rani Lakshmi Bai ... vs Jagdish Sharan Varshney And Ors on 26 March, 2009

15. The reason given for rejecting the request for family pension on ground of physical disability as coming out in the impugned orders is by way of a bland reason that the physical disability is not of such nature that prevents the applicant from earning a livelihood. Applicant has a 80 % permanent disability confined to wheelchair with no access to keep his body in a state of preparedness and hardiness which has apparently not been kept in mind by the competent authority. What should be the nature of physical disability to disallow a disability family pension has neither being specified in the impugned order or the counter affidavit, so as to afford an opportunity to applicant to convert the correctness of the impugned orders or for this Tribunal to test the correctness of the decision of the competent authority. The 13 impugned orders are arbitrary, unreasoned and not expected from an administration which is responsible for ensuring the well being of its constituent. I may say that exhibiting the necessity of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others (2009) 4 SCC 240 has in para 8 held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 276 - Full Document

S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990

"8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation".
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 1274 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 2 April, 1970

16. Sequelly, similar question came to be decided by Hon‟ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in the case of M/s Mahavir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others 1970 SCC (1) 764 which was subsequently followed in a line of judgments. Having considered the legal requirement of passing speaking order by the authority, it was ruled that "recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. It was also held that "while it must appear that the authority entrusted with the quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion of the problem before him: it must appear that he 14 has reached a conclusion which is according to law and just, and for ensuring that he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. Such authorities are required to pass reasoned and speaking order."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 348 - J C Shah - Full Document
1