Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
CHANDRA NANDI – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 10690 of 2017
Decided on : 01-04-2019
Facts of Case:
By impugned order, High Court while partly allowing writ petition filed by respondent(employee) herein modified order passed by Orissa State Administrative Tribunal in OA and directed State to grant respondent(employee) all pensionary benefits which he had claimed in his OA. State of Orissa has felt aggrieved and filed present appeal by way of special leave in this Court. Question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether High Court was justified in allowing respondent's writ petition in part and was, therefore, justified in issuing direction now impugned in this appeal by State.
Findings of Court:
Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case to High Court for its fresh disposal on merits, we have not expressed any opinion on merits of case while deciding this appeal. High Court will decide appeal uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in this order.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Every judicial or quasi-judicial order that decides a dispute between parties must be supported by clear reasons explaining the conclusion reached. Orders lacking reasoning are not legally sustainable and can be set aside (!) (!) .
Parties involved in a dispute, as well as appellate or revisional courts, are entitled to understand the basis on which a particular conclusion was reached. This ensures transparency and fairness in judicial decision-making (!) .
Orders that do not contain discussion of issues, submissions, or reasons for decisions hinder understanding of the rationale behind the judgment. Such orders are considered incomplete and are subject to being set aside (!) .
In the context of service law and pensionary benefits, judicial or quasi-judicial orders must explicitly address the issues raised and provide reasoning for granting or denying reliefs. Orders that merely issue directions without explanation are not sustainable (!) .
When an order is found to be unreasoned, it can be challenged and set aside, with the case often remanded for fresh consideration with proper reasoning. This process upholds the principles of fair and transparent adjudication (!) .
The importance of timely and reasoned judgments is emphasized to ensure justice is administered properly and parties are aware of the grounds for decisions (!) .
Courts are encouraged to decide cases based on the merits after proper discussion and reasoning, especially when dealing with claims for benefits or reliefs, to maintain the integrity of the judicial process (!) .
Would you like a summary tailored to a specific aspect or further elaboration on any point?
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
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.
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 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 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 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 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, 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, therefor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
