Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. versus CHANDRA NANDI on 1 April 2019
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1084
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1084
A
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
v.
CHANDRA NANDI
(Civil Appeal No. 10690 of 2017)
B
APRIL 01, 2019[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDDINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Judgment/Order:
CReasoned order – Non-assigning of reasons – Effect of – Held:Every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the court/tribunal/authority concerned, which decides the lis between theparties, must be supported with the reasons in support of itsconclusion – In the absence thereof, it is not possible to know as towhat led the court/tribunal/authority for reaching to such conclusionD– On facts, the High Court while passing the impugned order hadonly issued the writ of mandamus by giving direction to the State togive some reliefs to the writ petitioner without recording any reason,thus, the order not legally sustainable and set aside – Matterremanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, inEaccordance with law.
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to HighCourt, the Court HELD: 1.1 Every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passedFby the court/tribunal/authority concerned, which decides the lisbetween the parties, must be supported with the reasons insupport of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also theappellate/revisionary court while examining the correctness ofthe order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particularGconclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of anydiscussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged,it is not possible to know as to what led the court/tribunal/authorityfor reaching to such conclusion. [Para 10][1087-D, E]
1.2 The impugned order is an unreasoned order. The HighHCourt neither discussed the issues arising in the case, nor dealt1084
A
with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assignedany reason as to why it has allowed the writ petition and grantedthe reliefs to the writ petitioner which were declined by thetribunal. The order impugned in this appeal suffers from error,because the High Court while passing the impugned order hadonly issued the writ of mandamus by giving direction to the Stateto give some reliefs to the writ petitioner-respondent withoutrecording any reason. Therefore, such order is not legallysustainable and is set aside. The case is remanded to the HighCourt for deciding the writ petition afresh, in accordance withlaw. [Paras 11-13][1087-F-H]
B
C
State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan(1981) 4 SCC 129 ; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh& Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 222 : [1987] 2 SCR 220 ; State ofU.P. v. Battan & Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607 ; Raj KishoreJha v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 519 : [2003]4 Suppl. SCR 208 ; State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar(2004) 5 SCC 568 : [2004] 2 SCR 68 – relied on.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10690of 2017.
From the final impugned Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2014of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) Nos.19550/2011.
G
Som Raj Choudhury, Adv. for the Appellants.
S. Ravi Shankar, Mrs. S.Yamunah Nachiar, Advs. for theRespondent.
H
AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
7
Decisions referred to
In this index
4
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 24.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WritPetition (Civil) No.19550 of 2011 whereby the High Court allowed theBwrit petition in part and directed the State to treat therespondent(employee) as a regular employee and grant him pensionarybenefits which he had claimed in his OA.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of thisappeal, which involves a short point.
C
3. By impugned order, the High Court while partly allowing thewrit petition filed by the respondent(employee) herein modified the orderdated 11.06.2009 passed by Orissa State Administrative Tribunal (forshort “the Tribunal”) in OA No.1513(C) of 2004 and directed the Stateto grant the respondent(employee) all pensionary benefits which he hadDclaimed in his OA. The State of Orissa has felt aggrieved and filed thepresent appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
4. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in thisappeal, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing therespondent’s writ petition in part and was, therefore, justified in issuingEthe 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 certainreliefs in relation to his post-retiral benefits, such as gratuity, pensionetc.
F
6. By order dated 11.06.2009, the Tribunal granted some benefitsto the respondent but declined the remaining benefits which gave rise tofiling of the writ petition by the respondent (employee) against that partof the order of the Tribunal which declined to grant him the remainingbenefits which he had claimed in his OA.
G
7. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the respondent’swrit petition in part and also granted those benefits, which were declinedby the Tribunal giving rise to filing of this appeal by the State by way ofspecial leave in this Court.
H
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to allow this appeal, setaside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court fordeciding the respondent’s writ petition afresh on merits in accordancewith law.
9. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasionedbecause from the perusal of the impugned order, we find that it is anunreasoned order. In other words, the High Court neither discussed theissues arising in the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged bythe parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has allowed the writpetition and granted the reliefs to the writ petitioner which were declinedby 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 thereasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so alsothe appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of theorder are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion isarrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasonsand the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as towhat 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) 2SCC 222, State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607, RajKishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and Stateof 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 issuedthe writ of mandamus by giving direction to the State to give some reliefsto the writ petitioner (respondent) without recording any reason.
12. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not legallysustainable and hence deserves to be set aside.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case isremanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out ofwhich this appeal arises, for its disposal in accordance with law keepingin view the observations made above.
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A14. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case to theHigh Court for its fresh disposal on merits, we have not expressed anyopinion on the merits of the case while deciding this appeal. The HighCourt will, therefore, decide the appeal uninfluenced by any observationsmade by this Court in this order.
B15. Since the matter is old, we request the High Court to decidethe writ petition expeditiously preferably within six months.
Nidhi JainAppeal allowed and matter remanded to High Court.
C
D
E
F
G
H