Rama Nath Jha vs Union Of India Th. General Manager
- Neutral2018 INSC 545
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a High Court in appellate proceedings disposes of a writ petition by declining to disturb a prior order on specific procedural grounds without addressing the substantive contentions raised by the appellant, that judgment lacks adequate reasoning and must be remanded to the High Court to consider those contentions afresh and pass a properly reasoned decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RAMA NATH JHA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Writ Petition (C) No. 3548 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna was filed by the appellant herein, challenging the order dated 14.12.2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in OA No. 42 of 2005 and other connected matters.
3. The issue pertains to the claim made by the appellant that his promotion as a passenger guard was based on a selection. The impugned Judgment of the High Court reads as follows :-
“Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Railways. order of the Tribunal dated 14th December, 2012 now in the year 2017 on the ground 2 that this petitioner was not made party and heard.
From perusal of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, it is evident that this well considered decision has been taken keeping in mind the policy in vogue as well as the decisions, which have emerged subsequently after other rounds of legal battle before the Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. Individual grievances can be agitated before the Tribunal.”
4. We do not find that any of the contentions raised by the appellant has been dealt with in the writ appeal judgment. For that only reason, we set aside the impugned Judgment and remand the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned Judgment, adverting to the contentions raised by the appellant.
5. The appeal is disposed of as above.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]
New Delhi;
May 18, 2018.
3
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Diary No. 16797 of 2018
RAMA NATH JHA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.70165/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.70169/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 18-05-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Appellant(s) Mr. Aditya Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Adfv.
Mr. Sameer Kumar, AOR
Mr. Prateek Singh Chaudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free