Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.10690 OF 2017
State of Orissa & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Chandra Nandi …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order 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 treat the
respondent(employee) as a regular employee and grant
him pensionary benefits which he had claimed in his
OA.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.04.01
17:16:08 IST
Reason:
1
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
2
(State) and sought certain reliefs in relation to his
postretiral benefits, such as gratuity, 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.
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
3
Court for deciding the respondent's writ petition afresh
on merits in accordance 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 quasijudicial 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
4
conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of
any discussion, 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, vs. , (2001) 10
State of U.P. Battan & Ors.
SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
(2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram
(2004) 5 SCC 568).
Luhar,
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.
5
12. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is
not legally 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.
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.
6
15. Since the matter is old, we request the High
Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously
preferably within six months.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 01, 2019
7