STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. versus CHANDRA NANDI

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 01-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
v.
CHANDRA NANDI
(Civil Appeal No. 10690 of 2017)
APRIL 01, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Judgment/Order:
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
– 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
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
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
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
Court neither discussed the issues arising in the case, nor dealt
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1084
1084
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
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. 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
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]
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]
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
[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
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.
Som Raj Choudhury, Adv. for the Appellants.
S. Ravi Shankar, Mrs. S.Yamunah Nachiar, Advs. for the
Respondent.
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. CHANDRA NANDI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1086                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
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
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.
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 app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.