9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1735 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of pensionary benefits - treating respondent (employee) as a regular employee - 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? - HELD THAT - 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. 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 - 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 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.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of a judgment by the High Court regarding pensionary benefits for a retired employee. 2. Justifiability of the High Court's decision to grant pensionary benefits to the respondent. 3. Validity of the High Court's unreasoned order and the requirement for a reasoned decision in judicial orders. Issue 1: Interpretation of a judgment by the High Court regarding pensionary benefits for a retired employee The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court of Orissa's judgment in a writ petition where the High Court directed the State to treat the respondent as a regular employee and grant him pensionary benefits claimed in his Original Application (OA). The respondent, a retired employee, had filed OA seeking post-retiral benefits, including gratuity and pension. The Tribunal had granted some benefits but declined others, leading the respondent to file a writ petition against the Tribunal's decision. The High Court partially allowed the writ petition, granting the remaining benefits declined by the Tribunal, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court. Issue 2: Justifiability of the High Court's decision to grant pensionary benefits to the respondent The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in allowing the respondent's writ petition in part and directing the State to grant all pensionary benefits claimed in the OA. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court found the High Court's order to be unreasoned. The High Court failed to discuss the issues, consider the parties' submissions, or provide reasons for granting the reliefs to the respondent. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for judicial orders to be supported by reasons to understand the basis for the conclusions reached. Issue 3: Validity of the High Court's unreasoned order and the requirement for a reasoned decision in judicial orders The Supreme Court held that the High Court's unreasoned order issuing a writ of mandamus to grant reliefs to the respondent without recording any reasons was legally unsustainable. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of a reasoned decision in judicial orders and cited previous cases to support the requirement for reasons to be provided in support of conclusions reached. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, leaving it to the High Court for a fresh decision within six months. This detailed analysis covers the interpretation of the judgment, the justifiability of the decision, and the requirement for reasoned judicial orders, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved in the case.
|
