STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.versusCHANDRA NANDI

1084                SUPREME[2019]
                            COURT   REPORTS
                                  2 S.C.R. 1084             [2019] 2 S.C.R.


 A                         STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
                                         v.
                               CHANDRA NANDI
                         (Civil Appeal No. 10690 of 2017)
 B                           APRIL 01, 2019
                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                      DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
             Judgment/Order:

 C           Reasoned 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 the
       parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its
       conclusion – In the absence thereof, it is not possible to know as to
       what led the court/tribunal/authority for reaching to such conclusion
 D
       – On facts, 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 without recording any reason,
       thus, the order not legally sustainable and set aside – Matter
       remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, in
 E     accordance with law.
            Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to High
       Court, the Court
               HELD: 1.1 Every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed
 F     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
 G     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. [Para 10][1087-D, E]
            1.2 The impugned order is an unreasoned order. The High
 H     Court neither discussed the issues arising in the case, nor dealt
                                     1084
       STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHANDRA NANDI                       1085


with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned    A
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. The order impugned in this appeal suffers from error,
because the High Court while passing the impugned order had
only issued the writ of mandamus by giving direction to the State    B
to give some reliefs to the writ petitioner-respondent without
recording any reason. Therefore, such order is not legally
sustainable and is set aside. The case is remanded to the High
Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, in accordance with
law. [Paras 11-13][1087-F-H]                                         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 of
     U.P. v. Battan & Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607 ; Raj Kishore
     Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 519 : [2003]         D
     4 Suppl. SCR 208 ; State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar
     (2004) 5 SCC 568 : [2004] 2 SCR 68 – relied on.
                      Case Law Reference
(1981) 4 SCC 129              relied on              Para 10         E
[1987] 2 SCR 220              relied on              Para 10
(2001) 10 SCC 607             relied on              Para 10
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 208       relied on              Para 10
[2004] 2 SCR 68               relied on              Para 10         F
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10690
of 2017.
       From the final impugned Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2014
of 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 the
Respondent.

                                                                     H
1086                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 2 S.C.R.


 A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             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
 B     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.
 C
              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
 D     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
 E     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.
 F
              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.
 G
              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.

 H
        STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHANDRA NANDI                               1087
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal     A
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        B
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.                                                              C

       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        D
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)            E
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,    F
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 legally
sustainable and hence deserves to be set aside.                               G
      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.
                                                                              H
1088                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 2 S.C.R.


 A           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.
 B           15. Since the matter is old, we request the High Court to decide
       the writ petition expeditiously preferably within six months.

       Nidhi Jain                    Appeal allowed and matter remanded to High Court.



 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H