HEMLATA EKNATH PISE versus SHUBHAM BAHU-UDDESHIYA SANSTHA WADDHAMNA & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 11-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 610 : 2026 INSC 147
Hemlata Eknath Pise 
v. 
Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha  
Waddhamna & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1558-1559 of 2026)
11 February 2026
[Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the 
School Tribunal to consider afresh the claim of the appellant for 
reinstatement in service, based on its consideration of only a sole 
point raised on behalf of the first respondent while not dealing with 
the other points raised.
Headnotes†
Judgment/Order – Several issues raised, matter decided 
considering a solitary point without dealing with other points – 
Impermissibility – School Tribunal set aside the order of the 
first respondent dismissing the appellant from service and 
granted reinstatement together with consequential benefits 
to her – Writ petition filed by first respondent – High Court 
considering a solitary point raised on behalf of the first 
respondent (i.e., the Tribunal had not looked into all the 
records and proceedings, more particularly the resolution 
authorizing the Secretary thereof to initiate proceedings 
against the appellant) and without looking into any other point, 
remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider afresh the 
claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service – Review 
petition filed by appellant, rejected – Challenge to the order 
allowing the writ petition and the order dismissing the review 
petition:
Held: When several issues arise for being answered by a Court 
in the facts of a given case, ideally, disposal thereof ought to be 
preceded by recording the Court’s answers to each of such issues 
with reasons rather than the decision of the Court focusing on just 
one decisive point – High Court ought not to have remanded the 
matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on its consideration 
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
611
Hemlata Eknath Pise v.  
Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors.
of only a sole point – Even if the Secretary of the first respondent 
were authorized to draw up proceedings against the appellant 
by issuing charge-sheet, whether or not the inquiry suffered from 
breach of principles of natural justice, as claimed, and also as to 
whether the findings of the Tribunal were justified, ought to have 
engaged the High Court’s due consideration – High Court faltered 
in deciding only one single point while not dealing with the others, 
which is a fundamental flaw vitiating its order – Impugned orders 
set aside, writ petition remanded to the High Court for a fresh 
consideration thereof in the light of the claims and defences of 
the parties. [Paras 8-10]
Judgment/Order – Reasoned decision – Several issues raised, 
each of such issue to be dealt with:
Held: When several issues arise for being answered by a Court 
in the facts of a given case, ideally, disposal thereof ought to be 
preceded by recording the Court’s answers to each of such issues 
with reasons rather than the decision of the Court focusing on just 
one decisive point – This approach, apart from ensuring that all 
issues are considered providing clarity and assuring some sort of a 
finality, would respect the rights of the litigants to a comprehensive 
decision; also, if an appeal were carried from such decision, the 
appellate court would be benefitted by a reasoned decision of the 
original court. [Para 9]
List of Keywords
Only one single point decided while not dealing with the others; 
Solitary point raised was considered; No other point looked into; 
Several issues raised; Only one single point decided; Reasoned 
decision; School Tribunal; Dismissal from service; Claim for 
reinstatement in service; Reached the age of superannuation; 
Matter wrongly remanded.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 1558-1559 
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2024 and 25.09.2024 
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in WP No. 
5899 of 2019 and MRA No. 838 of 2024, respectively
612
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Amol B. Karande, B Lakshmi Pallesh, Ms. Akshda, Ashutosh 
Shrivastava, Manoj Ramkrushna Shete.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Satyajit A. Desai, Sachin Patil, Parth Johri, Sachin Singh, Pratik 
Kumar Singh, Shashank Upadhyay, Madhur Duggal, Sanchit 
Agrahari, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Narendar Rao Taneer, Ms. M. 
Harshini, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Naman Tandon, Siddharth 
Dharmadhikari,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.