State of Orissa & Ors. v. Chandra Nandi
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and ord er
dated 24.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.19550 of 2011 whereby the High Court allowed the
writ petition in part and directed the State to tre at the
respondent(employee) as a regular employee and grant him pensionary
benefits which he had claimed in his OA.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this
appeal, which involves a short point.
3. By impugned order, the High Court while partly allowing the
writ petition filed by the respondent(employee) herein modified the order
dated 11.06.2009 passed by Orissa State Administrative Tribunal (for
short “the Tribunal”) in OA No.1513(C) of 2004 and directed the State
to grant the respondent(employee) all pensionary benefits which he had
claimed in his OA. The State of Orissa has felt aggrieved and filed the
present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
4. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this
appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the
respondent’s writ petition in part and was, therefore, justified in issuing
the direction now impugned in this appeal by the State.
5. The respondent (a retired employee) filed OA No.1513 (C)
2004 in the Tribunal against the appellant (State) and sought certain
reliefs in relation to his post-retiral benefits, such as g ratuity, pension
etc.
6. By order dated 11.06.2009, the Tribunal granted some benefits
to the respondent but declined the remaining benefits which gave rise to
filing of the writ petition by the respondent (employee) against that part
of the order of the Tribunal which declined to grant him the remaining
benefits which he had claimed in his OA.
7. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the respondent’s
writ petition in part and also granted those benefits, which were declined
by the Tribunal giving rise to filing of this appeal by the State by way of
special leave in this Court.
1087
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow this appeal, set
aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Cour t for
deciding the respondent’s writ petition afresh on merits in ac cordance
with law.
9. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned
because from the perusal of the impugned order, we find that it is an
unreasoned order. In other words, the High Court neither discussed the
issues arising in the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by
the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has allowed the writ
petition and granted the reliefs to the writ petitioner which were declined
by the Tribunal.
10. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/
and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned,
which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the
reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also
the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the
order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is
arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussio n, the reasons
and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to
what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion.
(See - State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981)
4 SCC 129, Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors., (1987) 2
SCC 222, State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors. , (2001) 10 SCC 607, Raj
Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State
of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568).
11. The order impugned in this appeal suffers from aforesaid error,
because the High Court while passing the impugned order had only issued
the writ of mandamus by giving direction to the State to give some reliefs
to the writ petitioner (respondent) without recording any reason.
12. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not lega lly
sustainable and hence deserves to be set aside.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and
is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is
remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out of
which this appeal arises, for its disposal in accordance with law keeping
in view the observations made above.
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHANDRA NANDI
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed and matter remanded to Hig h Court.
14. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case to the
High Court for its fresh disposal on merits, we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case while deciding this appeal. The High
Court will, therefore, decide the appeal uninfluenced by any observations
made by this Court in this order.
15. Since the matter is old, we request the High Court to decide
the writ petition expeditiously preferably within six months.