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.

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, 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.

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