TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Civil Appeal No.10690 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, 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 (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt/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. 12. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not legally sustainable and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
