Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 *** Sri Biren Kumar Biswal Aged about 60 years Son of Late Duryodhan Biswal At: Rayapur, P.O.: M.G. Khamar P.S.: Patakura District: Kendrapara. … -VERSUS- 1. State of Odisha Represented through Principal Secretary General Administration and Public Grievance Department Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 2. Nodal Officer Petitioner. Odisha Administrative Tribunal Bhubaneswar, At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha … Opposite parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : M/s. Sameer Kumar Das, Prakash Kumar Behera, Nirajan Jena, Advocates W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 1 of 141 For the Opposite parties : Mr. Arnav Behera, Additional Standing Counsel P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 12.09.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 02.01.2025 MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— J UDGMENT Aggrieved by Office Order bearing No.E(ii)/24/2023/ 688/OAT, dated 30.05.2023 of the Nodal Officer issued from the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-7) approving the revision of pay recommended by the Screening Committee in its Proceeding dated 28.02.2023, which was held to comply with the direction contained in the Order dated 13.01.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022, the petitioner beseeching quashment of said Order came up in the instant writ petition claiming following relief(s): ―Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon‘ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the Office Order No. 688/OAT, dated 30.05.2023 of the opposite party No.2 under Annexure-7 and consequential Letter dated 21.08.2023 under Annexure- 8; W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 2 of 141 And further be please to direct the opposite parties to revise the pay of the petitioner in the 3rd Revised Assured Career Progression on completion of 30 years of service in Level-10 of the Pay Matrix with all consequential benefits by restoring his pay revision under Annexure-4; And also revise his pension and pensionary benefits and to grant him all consequential service and financial benefits including arrears within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; And/or pass any other appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions in the fitness of the case. And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.‖ Facts as stated in the writ petition: 2. The petitioner having joined as Junior Grade Typist in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar on 04.10.1990, got promotion to the post of Senior Grade Typist on 01.02.2019. As per the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service and Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999 (herein after referred to as “OAT Staff Rules, 1999”), which came into force with effect from 03.09.1999, the next promotional avenue is the post of “Senior Assistant”. 2.1. On the recommendations of Fitment Committee, the State Government employees are granted Assured W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 3 of 141 Career Progression (“ACP”, for short) on completion of 15, 25 and 30 years of service akin to the Time Bound Advancement (“TBA”, for short) provisions of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998. Such provision was revised by a Finance Department Resolution dated 06.02.2013 granting three financial upgradation under the Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (“RACPS”, for convenience) on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years. 2.2. As the petitioner was to get his 2nd RACP in the promotional grade of Senior Assistant, his pay was fixed in the scale of pay Rs.9,300/- — Rs.34,800/- with Grade Pay Rs.4,200/- with financial benefit with effect from 01.01.2013. It has further been revised in terms of the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008 (“ORSP Rules, 2008”, for convenience), which he has been in receipt of. 2.3. While the petitioner was so continuing and discharging his duty, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar was abolished by virtue of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) Notification F. No. A-11014/10/2015-AT [G.S.R. 552(E).], dated 2nd August, 2019), pursuant to which some of the employees were deputed and permanently absorbed in W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 4 of 141 other Departments of the State Government, but the petitioner and certain other employees were allowed to continue in the said Tribunal in order to do the needful in transferring the records to this Court and they were assigned with administrative functions. After the closure of the Tribunal the powers and functions of the Registrar of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal were vested with “Nodal Officer”/“Officer-on- Special Duty, an officer borne in the Odisha Administrative Service Cadre. 2.4. The Nodal Officer by Office Order No.3367— E(vii)/73/2021/OAT, dated 16.11.2021 while stating the petitioner to be eligible to get 3rd financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (“MACPS”, for brevity) with effect from 04.10.2020 on completion of 30 years of service, re-fixed the scale of pay at Rs.5,200/- — Rs.20,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/- in Level-8 by rectifying/ reducing/revising the pay granted in 2nd RACPS, which had already been granted at Rs.9,300/- — Rs.34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- with effect from 01.01.2013. 2.5. Claiming such revision vide Order dated 16.11.2021 is erroneous and contrary to what has been expounded by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Odisha W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 5 of 141 Vrs. Bihari Lal Barik, W.P.(C) No.2831 of 2016, disposed of by Judgment dated 27.06.20161, the petitioner contended that the pay fixation as made in Office Order No.2152—E(ii)/45/2014, dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure-4) was reasonable and in conformity with the rules governing the field. Therefore, assailing said Order dated 16.11.2021, he approached this Court by way of filing writ petition, giving rise to W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022, which came to be disposed of by a Single Bench vide Judgment dated 13.01.2023 with a direction to the Nodal Officer to place the matter before the Screening Committee which would take decision afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner to furnish show cause reply. 2.6. In pursuance thereof, show cause reply being furnished by the petitioner, the opposite party No.2, made the following observation in the Order dated 30.05.2023: ―*** the And whereas, following Rules/Notifications/ Resolutions which were in vogue at the time of grant of 2nd RACP are meticulously examined as it is revealed from the proceedings dated 28.02.2023 in favour of the present petitioners: 1 Reported as State of Odisha Vrs. Bihari Lal, 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 333. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 6 of 141 1. Resolution of No.3560/F., dated 06.02.2013. Finance Department vide 2. Resolution of the General Administration & Public Grievance Department vide No.3894/Gen., dated 09.02.2018. 3. Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999. And whereas, the Screening Committee in its meeting dated 28.02.2023, have decided to fix the pay as per Annexure-‗A‘ & ‗B‘ attached to the proceedings of the Screening Committee dated 28.02.2023. And whereas, the Screening the proceedings of Committee Meeting held on 28.02.2023 has been approved by the General Administration & Public Grievance Department and communicated vide Letter No. 14938/Gen., dated 22.05.2023. Now therefore, upon approval of the recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 28.02.2023, the pay fixation in favour of Sri Ratnakar Sahoo, Senior Grade Typist and Sri Biren Kumar Biswal, Senior Grade Typist of Odisha Administrative Tribunal are hereby approved as per Annexure-’A’ & ’B’ enclosed herewith as per Orders dated 13.01.2023 of the Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa passed in the W.P.(C) No.12358/2022 and W.P.(C) No.12359/2022 respectively. The above order is come into force with immediate effect.‖ W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 7 of 141 2.7. As a sequel to the above order, Letter bearing No.1225— E(vii)/2/2023/335/OAT, dated 21.08.2023 has been issued by the Officer-on-Special Duty, Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar with the following instructions seeking recovery of excess amount already paid to the petitioner: ―With reference to the Orders on the subject cited, it is stated here that an excess amount of salary to the tune lakhs seventy-five of Rs.3,75,255/- thousand and two hundred fifty-five only) has been drawn and disbursed in your favour during your service period. A copy of the excess drawal particulars are enclosed herewith for your reference. (rupees three You are, therefore, requested to submit your reply within 10 days in support of your stand failing which the above action will be considered as final and recovery of the excess drawal shall be effected.‖ 2.8. Dissatisfied with the manner of disposal of grievance with reference to the material particulars submitted in the reply to show cause dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure- P/2 series of the counter affidavit) and erroneous approach of the opposite parties qua the averments, as taken note of in the Judgment dated 13.01.2023 rendered in W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022 (Annexure-5), the petitioner preferred to move this Court in second round of litigation seeking to question the legality of Order dated 30.05.2023 of the opposite party No.2 W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 8 of 141 (Annexure-7) and the propriety of instructions contained in the Letter dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure- 8). Counter affidavit of the opposite parties: 3. Laying emphasis on the OAT Staff Rules, 1999, the
Facts
opposite parties affirmed that the post of Senior Assistant is filled up by way of promotion from among the Junior Assistant or the Store Keeper of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal who have rendered three years of service and such employee must have passed the Preliminary Accounts Examination conducted by the Board of Revenue/Madhusudan Das Institute of Accounts and Finance. It is also provided that 10% of the vacancies in the Cadre of Senior Assistant in a year is required to be filled up from among the Senior Grade Typist/Senior Grade Diarist/Senior Grade Recorder of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal who have passed matriculation examination and rendered 10 years of continuous service as such on the 1st day of January in which the recruitment is made. Though the post of Senior Assistant is the promotional post of Senior Grade Typist, it is not within the Cadre as the Senior Grade Typist has to compete with the Senior Grade Diarist and Senior Grade Recorder. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 9 of 141 3.1. Explaining further it is asserted that a Senior Grade Typist may be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant if he is found eligible in his Cadre whereas a Junior Assistant is promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, if he is found eligible in his Cadre. In view of Paragraph 10 of RACPS vide Finance Department Resolution dated 06.02.2013, ―the employees in isolated/ex-cadre posts not having any promotional hierarchy will get next higher Grade Pay as per the First Schedule of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008 with the interpolations, if any introduced subsequently‖. 3.2. It has been asserted in the counter affidavit that: (Pay Band-2) with effect ―17. That, in this view of the matter, the fixation of pay of the petitioner at Rs.9,560/- + Grade Pay from Rs.4,200/- 01.01.2013 and at Rs.10,290/- + Rs.4,200/- with effect from 01.10.2013, in the scale of pay of Rs.9,300/- — Rs.34,800/- instead of being fixed at Rs.9560/- + Grade Pay 2,800/- (Pay Band-I) with effect from 01.01.2013 and at Rs.10,290/- + from Grade Pay Rs.2,800/- with 01.10.2013, was incorrect. The error was pointed out by the Screening Committee in its meeting dated 21.09.2021 and recommended that instead of sanctioning the Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/- in Pay Band-1 next to the Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/- while fixing the Pay and Grade Pay of the petitioner after grant of the 2nd RACP, inadvertently the pay Page 10 of 141 effect W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 of the petitioner was fixed in the initial Pay Band of Group-B, i.e., Rs.9,300/- — Rs.34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- which should have been fixed i.e., Rs.5,200/- — Rs.20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/-. *** in Pay Band-I, fixed subsequent 18. The State Government implemented the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2017, on the basis of recommendations made by the 7th Central Pay Commission and Fitment Committee constituted by Finance Department Government of Odisha with effect from 01.01.2016. Since the pay of the is to be revised with effect from petitioner to 01.01.2013, his pay introduction of the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2017 is also revised. According to Rule 7 of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017, to derive the new pay, the pay fixation was needed to be done in Schedule-III of the said Rules, on the basis of old pay 01.01.2016, following which the pay of the petitioner requires to be revised in Level-6 of the Pay Matrix. The example of the above pay fixation has been given in the form of illustration-4 in the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017. *** 30. In reply to the averments made in paragraph 6 to the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the Government in Finance Department have introduced Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme vide Resolution No.3560/F., dated 06.02.2013. This Scheme provides three financial upgradation in a Cadre counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10/20/30 years of service. It provides for the promotional Page 11 of 141 for W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 post Grade Pay in case of Cadres having the promotional hierarchy and next higher Grade Pay as per First Schedule of ORSP Rules, 2008 for the isolated/ex-Cadre posts. It is further humbly submitted that Finance Department in Letter No.1738/F., dated 20.01.2014 have clarified at point number 12 that ―the Grade Pay of a promotional post which belongs to another Cadre shall not be allowed under the RACP Scheme even if the former post is only the feeder post of that promotional post‖ since the RACP Scheme is confined to a Cadre only. The petitioner joined as Junior Grade Typist in the Office of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal on 04.10.1990 and completed more than twenty years of service as on 01.01.2013, i.e., the date of implementation of RACP Scheme. However, the Office Order dated 06.03.2014 issued earlier by Office of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal for grant of financial benefit, i.e., awarding Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- along with Pay Band Rs.9,300/- — Rs.34,800 for Senior Assistant post of Odisha meant Administrative Tribunal on the 2nd RACP is not correct. Thus it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for the Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- in Pay Band-II Rs.9,300/- — Rs.34,800/- of the post of Senior Assistant on the 2nd RACP following the clarification made at point number 12 of Finance Department Letter No.1738/F., dated 20.01.2014.‖ Rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner: W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 12 of 141 4. Refuting the above contentions, the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit stated that the stance taken by the opposite parties has no merit in view of principles laid down in State of Odisha Vrs. Bihari Lal, 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 333 which was rendered by Division Bench taking cognizance of all such relevant the Resolutions with reference to the ORSP Rules, 2008. While asserting that Order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-7) issued as a sequel to acceptance of recommendation of the Screening Committee cannot withstand scrutiny in law, the Letter dated 21.08.2023 seeking to recover excess drawal in salary from the petitioner would be in violation of ruling of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab Vrs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334. Hearing: 5. Since pleadings are completed and exchanged between the counsel for the respective parties, on consent this matter (second round of litigation) is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
Legal Reasoning
13.01.2023 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022. Further reasons by way of counter affidavit cannot be supplemented to fortify the Order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-7). 6.1. Having not answered as to why the decision rendered by this Court in State of Odisha Vrs. Bihari Lal, 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 333 is not applicable to the present case, the opposite parties could not countenance the decision taken in the Meeting held on 28.02.2023 by the Screening Committee (Annexure-Q/2 enclosed to the counter affidavit), which is stated to have been W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 14 of 141 followed in the making of Order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-7). 6.2. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of State of Punjab Vrs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which is a case relating to recovery of excess payment of salary made to the employees belonging to Group-C and Group-D, the Letter dated 21.08.2023 seeking to recover excess drawal in salary has no sanctity, and the action suggested in the said letter vide Annexure-8 is outcome of non-application of mind and tainted by non-consideration of show-cause reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner in proper perspective. 7. Sri Arnav Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties placed heavy reliance on the counter affidavit and submitted that following undertaking as contained in the Fifth Schedule specified under Rule 17 of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008 has been given by the petitioner: ―I hereby undertake that any excess payment that may be found to have been made as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or any excess payment detected in the light of discrepancies noticed subsequently will be refunded by me to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due to me or otherwise.‖ W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 15 of 141 It is vehemently contended that the petitioner cannot hide behind the shield of Rafiq Masih (supra). Buttressing his argument, he relied on High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vrs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 6 SCR 781 and contended that as the mistake in fixation of pay could come to fore at a later stage, in view of undertaking given by the petitioner, he is requested to make refund of excess amount already drawn. 7.1. Expanding his argument further, Sri Arnav Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the decision of Bihari Lal (supra) is not applicable inasmuch as the post of Senior Grade Typist is not the feeder grade for promotion to Senior Assistant. He further submitted that the feeder grade for promotion to the Senior Assistant is Junior Assistant and only 10% of the posts of Senior Assistant Cadre of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal could be filled up from not only the eligible Senior Grade Typist, but also Senior Grade Diarist and Senior Grade Recorder. Therefore, he strenuous urged that the claim of the petitioner to get his pay to be fixed at Level-10 instead of Level-8 under the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme under Rule 13 of the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017 is having no foundation and accordingly insisted for sustaining the Office Order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-7) refusing Page 16 of 141 W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 the accede to the claim of the petitioner by the Nodal Officer of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal and Letter dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure-8) seeking to recover/refund of excess payment made to the petitioner. 7.2. Accordingly, Sri Arnav Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel made fervent prayer for dismissal of
Arguments
5.1. Heard Sri Sameer Kumar Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Arnav Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 13 of 141 5.2. Hearing being concluded, the matter was reserved for preparation and pronouncement of judgment. Rival contentions and submissions: 6. Sri Sameer Kumar Das, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that evasive reply of the opposite parties in the counter affidavit cannot have any aid to sustain the impugned Order at Annexure-7 and the Letter at Annexure-8. It is submitted that in the garb of counter affidavit, the opposite parties could not improve upon what is not available in the Screening Committee Proceeding dated 28.02.2023 which was stated to have conducted to comply with the direction contained in the Judgment dated
Decision
the writ petition. Analysis and discussions: 8. It needs emphasis that the Screening Committee in its Proceeding vide Meeting held on 28.02.2023 (Annexure-Q/2 series) has recorded that the petitioner has joined as Senior Grade Typist on 01.02.2019. There is no dispute that the petitioner having joined as Junior Grade Typist on 04.10.1990 has completed 20 years of service on 03.10.2010. Therefore, eligibility to avail benefit of RACPS under the ORSP Rules, 2008 was in vogue on 03.10.2010. In the Proceeding dated 28.02.2023 (which was held to comply the direction contained in Judgment dated 13.01.2023 rendered in W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022) the Screening Committee recommended not only to revise the pay with effect from 01.01.2013 but also allow the petitioner to exercise option for grant of 3rd MACP with effect from 04.10.2020 (completion of 30 years of service). W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 17 of 141 9. With the background factual position as narrated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is called upon to examine whether the Screening Committee has acted within the ambit of order of remit directed in the Judgment dated 13.01.2023 of this Court in the earlier round of litigation being W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022. 9.1. To appreciate, it is felt expedient to extract herein below portion of the impugned Office Order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-7) so far as is relevant for the present purpose: ―Odisha Administrative Tribunal Bhubaneswar *** Office Order No.E(ii)24/2023/688/OAT., Bhubaneswar Dated, the 30.05.2023 Sub: Disposal of representation dated 20.02.2023 of Sri Ratnakar Sahoo, Senior Grade Typist and Sri Biren Kumar Biswal, Senior Grade Typist of Odisha Administrative Tribunal in response to the Order dated 13.01.2023 of Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa passed in W.P.(C) No.12358/2022 and W.P.(C) No.12359/2022 respectively. Whereas, Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa passed Order in W.P.(C) No.12358/2022 and dated 13.01.2023 W.P.(C) No.12359/2022 filed by Ratnakar Sahoo, W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 18 of 141 Senior Grade Typist and Biren Kumar Biswal, Senior Grade Typist respectively in the following manner: the that ‗30. Having heard the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties and factual upon a careful consideration of background of the cases and upon a conspectus of the materials placed before this Court by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view the Order under Annexure-5 has affected both the Petitioners adversely as their pay scale was revised and downgraded that too without giving them an opportunity to show cause. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the orders dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure- 5 in both the writ petitions are unsustainable in law and needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-5 in both the writ applications, which are identical, are hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded to the Nodal Officer, Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, who shall place the matter before the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee is directed to take a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to show cause to the Petitioners and further a final decision shall be taken in the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order by taking into consideration all grounds raised by the Petitioners in their reply to the proposed show cause notice. The Opposite Parties are further directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 19 of 141 Further, the Opposite Parties are also directed to act on the production of certified copy of this order. 31. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are allowed partly. both However, there shall be no order as to cost.‘ Whereas, Hon‘ble High Court has indicated in the above order that the Order dated 16.11.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal are hereby quashed. Further, Hon‘ble Court the Nodal Officer, Odisha Administrative directed Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to place the matter before the Screening Committee to take a fresh decision after providing an opportunity the petitioners and further a final decision be taken in the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order by taking into consideration of all grounds raised by the petitioners in their reply to the proposed show-cause notice. to show-cause to And whereas, taking into consideration of the orders of the Hon‘ble High Court and on the request of the Nodal Officer of Odisha Administrative Tribunal vide Letter No.119, dated 02.02.2023 and No.120, dated 02.02.2023, the General Administration & Public Grievance Department formed a Screening Committee their Office Order No.3841/Gen., dated vide 14.02.2023. Show cause notices were served upon the two petitioners to file their reply. Accordingly, they have submitted show-cause dated 20.02.2023 stating there in their own stand on the Order dated l6.11.2021 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petitions). W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 20 of 141 the And whereas, following Rules/Notifications/ Resolutions which were in vogue at the time of grant of 2nd RACP are meticulously examined as it is revealed from the proceedings dated 28.02.2023 in favour of the present petitioners. 1. Resolution of No.3560/F., dated 06.02.2013. Finance Department vide 2. Resolution of the General Administration & Public Grievance Department vide No. 3894/Gen., dated 09.02.2018. 3. Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999. And whereas, the Screening Committee in its meeting dated 28.02.2023, have decided to fix the pay as per Annexure-‗A‘ & ‗B‘ attached to the proceedings of the Screening Committee dated 28.02.2023. And whereas, the Screening the proceedings of Committee Meeting held on 28.02.2023 has been approved by the General Administration & Public Grievance Department and communicated vide Letter No. 14938/Gen., dated 22.05.2023. Now therefore, upon approval of the recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 28.02.2023, the pay fixation in favour of Sri Ratnakar Sahoo, Senior Grade Typist and Sri Biren Kumar Biswal, Senior Grade Typist of Odisha Administrative Tribunal are hereby approved as per Annexure-‗A‘ & ‗B‘ enclosed herewith as per Orders dated 13.01.2023 of the Hon‘ble High Court of W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 21 of 141 Orissa the W.P.(C) No. 12358/2022 and W.P.(C) No. 12359/2022 respectively. The above order is come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- 30.05.2023 Nodal Officer‖ 9.2. As it appears the Nodal Officer vide Notice dated 16.02.2023 (Annexure-P/2 to the counter affidavit) invited show cause reply; responding to which the petitioner explained by reply dated 20.02.2023 as follows: ―*** In obedience to that order your good office has issued notice dated 16.02.2023 under reference: 1. That the moot issue involved in the cases as to whether there was any illegality or irregularity in the earlier order dated 06.03.2014 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar passed by its Registrar allowing the benefits of 2nd Revised Assured Career Progression in the appropriate scale and grade. The Honourable Court on consideration all the aspects was pleased to find the Order dated 16.11.2021 to be irrational and illegal and accordingly set aside the same. Therefore, I enclosed here with the copy of my writ petition and its annexures for ready reference with a request to treat it as a part of my objection/ reply to your notice dated 16.02.2023. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 22 of 141 2. That since the honourable Court has taken note of each of the issues involved in the case more specifically the judgement of the honourable High Court of Orissa confirmed in the honourable Supreme Court of India, i.e., in the case of State of Odisha and another Vrs. Bihari Lal Barik and others, W.P.(C) No.2831 of 2016 disposed of on 27.06.2016. The Honourable Court has taken note of the judgement of the honourable Supreme Court with regard to recovery from the employee of any payment made pursuant to a Government Order by reference to the judgement of the honourable Court in the case of State of Punjab and another Vrs. Rafiq Masih, (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. From the aforesaid at two judgments the issue involved in this case have already been decided in my favour and therefore no further adjudication is required at your level. But since the honourable Court has directed to Screening Committee to do the needful in the matter and to pass a speaking order in order to assist the Screening Committee to come to a in the matter by allowing me the benefit of 2nd Revised Assured Career Progression as allowed in the previous Order of the honourable Odissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, I strongly rely upon the judgments in the case of Bihar Lal Barik (supra). just conclusion decision I have gone through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State the Nodal Officer and Government in the High Court and has also filed a rejoinder. The ground taken in the entire counter affidavit got answered in paragraph 16 of the W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 23 of 141 3. judgement in the case of Bihari Lal (supra) and therefore no further adjudication is required in the the case matter. For better appreciation of paragraph 16 of the judgement in the case of Bihari Lal Barik (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference of the honourable Screening Committee, though I have attached the entire judgement along with this petition. *** it that Tribunal (Recruitment the service condition is humbly submitted That for the aforesaid reasons at the cost of the reputation petitioner entered into Government service on 04.10.1990 as a Junior Grade Typist and joined in Odisha Administrative Tribunal which is a Heads of Department and is governed under the provisions of the Odisha and Administrative Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999. As per Rule 7 read with Schedule-I thereof clearly provides that the post of Junior Grade Typist and Senior Grade Typist. Unlike other Departments of the State Government there is no such promotional post like Head Typist and Superintendent in the hierarchy of promotion of the Junior Grade Typist and Senior Grade Typist in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, there is a promotional avenue available in the Recruitment Rules, 1999 for these Senior Grade Typist to that of Senior Assistant under the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The law has been well- settled in the case of State of Odisha and another Vrs. Bihari Lal Barik and others, W.P.(C) No.2831 of 2016 disposed of on 27.06.12016 that an employee while given the benefit of the Revised W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 24 of 141 Assured Career Progression he is entitled to the Pay Band attached to the next post in his promotional avenue not in any other Grade Pay come in between. Therefore the petitioner who became entitled to the 2nd Revised Assured Career Progression on completion of 20 years of service with effect from 04.10.2010 was rightly allowed the benefit of the 2nd Revised Assured Career Progression by the same Tribunal under Annexure-4 of the writ petition by allowing the benefit of the Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- in the scale of pay of Rs.9,300/- — Rs.34,800/- with the actual financial benefit from 01.01.2013 as per Finance Department Resolution No.3560/F., dated 06.02.2013 as it is the scale of pay of the post of Senior Assistant. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in such fixation of the pay of the petitioner on completion of 20 years of service in the 2nd Revised Assured Career Progression under Annexure-4 of the writ petition. That it is not out of place to mention here that to justify the stand taken by me that the next promotional post of Senior Grade Typist is the Senior Assistant which carries the scale of pay of Rs.9,300/- — Rs.34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200. I have obtained copy of one such promotion order of another Senior Grade Typist of the same Tribunal. Sri Nilakanth Das vide Memo No.2194, dated 20.03.2017 which was also annexed in the honourable court which justify the fact that a next promotional avenue of the Senior Typist is to the post of Senior Assistant as Sri Nilakanth Das was rightly extended the benefit of 4. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 25 of 141 Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- while fixing his pay in the 2nd Revised Assured Career Progression. The other persons who have got such promotion as that of Sri Nilakantha Das are Sri Bira Kishore Singh, Sri Pramod Kumar Panda and Sri Lachhman Tudu of the same Tribunal. Therefore, I am entitled to similar treatment in shape of Revised Assured Career Progression without discrimination. In the aforesaid premises, I humbly pray before the honourable Screening Committee to take a pragmatic approach in my favour by taking note of the judgements I rely upon, so also the judgments of the honourable Court more specifically by taking note of the fact that I am going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2023. I hope and trust your honour will pass a judicious order by allowing me to the benefits of Revised Assured Career draw Progression as per the earlier order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the 2nd Revised Assured Career Progression and also direct the Nodal Officer to re-fix my pay under 3rd Revised Assured Career Progression as per my entitlement in the Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- and oblige.‖ 9.3. The impugned Order dated 30.05.2023 acceded to the recommendations of the Screening Committee in its Meeting held on 28.02.2023 reveals that: ―Pursuant to the Order dated 13.01.2023 of Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa passed in W.P.(C) No.12358/2022 and W.P.(C) No.12359/2022 filed by Sri Ratnakar Sahoo, Senior Grade Typist and Sri Biren Kumar W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 26 of 141 to in Biswal, Senior Grade Typist respectively and pursuance the Order No.3041/Gcn., dated 14.02.2023 of General Administration and Public Grievance Department and Letter No. 230/OAT, dated 24.02.2023, the following members of the Screening Committee were present on dated 28.02.2023 to lake decision financial upgradation under RACP/MACP in favour of Sri Ratnakar Sahoo and Sri Biren Kumar Biswal. Senior Grade Typists of O.A.T. Members Present: relating to i. ii. Smt Sagarika Hota. FA-cum-Additional Secretary General Administration and Public Grievance Department Sri Debabrata Mallick Nodal Officer, Odisha Administrative Tribunal Chairperson Member Convenor iii. Sri Chitta Ranjan Panda Member Under Secretary to Government (FE), General Administration and Public Grievance Department The operating portion of Order dated 13.01.2023 is furnished as under based upon which the follow up action in the matter is decided: 30. *** 31. *** As per the Order dated 13.01.2023 of thc Hon‘ble Court, show cause notices were .served upon the two their grievances vide Letter petitioners to submit W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 27 of 141 No.177, dated 16.02.2023 and No.170, dated 16.02.2023 of Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, two petitioners have submitted their reply to show cause pointing out the detailed facts as raised by them in the two Writ Petitions. Pursuant to the Order of Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa, sufficient opportunity of being heard was extended to both Sri Ratnakar Sahoo, Senior Grade Typist and Sri Biran Kumar Biswal, Senior grade Typist. But both Sri Sahoo and Sri Biswal could not substantiate with reasons or pointed out anomaly in the Order dated 16.11.2021 of the Nodal Officer, Odissa Administrative Tribunal beyond the ground already resorted to in the W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022 filed by the petitioners respectively. the above discussion, In view of the Screening Committee recommends to revise the pay with effect from 01.01.2013 and allow to exercise option to grant 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression with effect from 04.10.2020. The detailed calculation of revised pay with effect from 01.01.2013 till the date of superannuation annexed at Annexure-A and B respectively in favour of Sri Ratnakar Sahoo, Senior Grade Typist and Sri Biran Kumar Biswal, Senior Grade Typist. The meeting ended with vote of thanks chairperson and members.‖ to the 9.4. Cumulative reading of aforesaid material would indicate that neither the Screening Committee nor did the Nodal Officer considered the grievance of the W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 28 of 141 petitioner in proper perspective. From the reply dated 20.02.2023 it is unambiguous that the petitioner has confined its claim with respect to 2nd RACPS under the ORSP Rules, 2008 which has been availed and objection as to recovery of alleged excess payment. There seems no issue with respect to 3rd MACP under the Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2017. None of the contentions/averments/grounds as made available to the Screening Committee by the petitioner by way of reply has been addressed to. 9.5. This Court while directing the Nodal Officer to place the matter before the Screening Committee which in turn was required to consider the show cause reply of the petitioner in compliance of principles of natural justice vide Judgment dated 13.01.2023 rendered in W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022, observed as follows: ―7. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the impugned order Petitioner submitted that the dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-5 is erroneous and illegal and the same is against the Rules of 1999 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He further contended that the Petitioner was rightly the 2nd RACP with Grade Pay of allowed Rs.4200/- under the Finance Department Resolution 2013. The conduct of the Nodal Officer in reverting the Petitioner to a lower scale of pay all of a sudden without providing any opportunity to show cause is per se illegal, according to Mr. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 29 of 141 Das. Further, the recovery sought to be made is in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Das further submits that the benefit already accrued in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the rules should not have been taken away abruptly and consequential order for recovery should not have been passed after 7 years. It is further contended that such conduct seriously jeopardized the life and livelihood of the Petitioner and eventually the service conditions have been altered. the authorities has of 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on the basis of the Finance Department Resolution of the Year 2013, the Petitioner is eligible for 3rd RACP benefits w.e.f. 04.10.2020 in the next higher Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-. But most unfortunately, the Opposite Party No.2 has directed the Petitioner to give his option to come down to Level-8 of the pay matrix under ORSP Rules, 2017, although the same is not his actual entitlement. On the contrary, the Petitioner is entitled to the Grade Pay of the P.B.-2 in Level-10 of the Pay Matrix. Although the Petitioner approached the Nodal Officer with request to reconsider his decision, the Nodal Officer verbally informed that the decision of the Screening Committee cannot be changed. In the said context, Mr. Das further submitted that there exists no statutory Screening Committee in the W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 30 of 141 Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1999 as of now. He further contended that the recovery sought to be made pursuant to the decision of such Screening Committee is completely in violation of the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih‘s case (supra). Accordingly, it was prayed that the order under Annexure-5 be quashed. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties wherein it has been pleaded that the Petitioner entered into the Government service as Junior Grade Typist on 04.10.1990 in the time scale of pay of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 under the ORSP Rules, 1989 (equivalent to 6th Pay GP of Rs.1900/- or 7th Pay at Level-4). Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Senior Grade Typist only on 16.02.2015. After completion of 15 years of continuous service in the post of Junior Grade Typist in the absence of promotion, he was granted financial upgradation benefit in the shape of TBA in the scale of pay of Rs.3200- 85-4900/- under the ORSP Rules, 1998 w.e.f. 04.10.2005 (equivalent of GP of Rs.2000/- as per the ORSP Rules, 2008 under 6th Pay and Level-5 as per the ORSP Rules, 2017 under 7th Pay). Further, referring to the Finance Department Resolution dated 06.02.213, it has been stated that RACP was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2013 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service in a single cadre in absence of promotion. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that after completion of 20 years of service in the post of the Junior Grade Typist as on 03.10.2010 its proceeding dated Screening Committee in W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 31 of 141 08.05.2014 found that the Petitioner is eligible for grant of the 1st RACP with benefit of Grade Pay corresponding to Senior Grade Typist and 2nd RACP w.e.f. 01.01.2013. to get found eligible 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Screening Committee on 08.05.2014 under Annexure-C/2, 6 (six) numbers of Group-C employees of the OAT financial who were upgradation benefits under the RACP Scheme wherein the Petitioner‘s name finds place at Sl. No.4. However, it has also been stated that the pay of the Petitioner was erroneously fixed vide Office Order dated 31.05.2014. Further, in the counter affidavit, it has been narrated in detail as to how the pay has been fixed erroneously. Upon a careful examination of the analysis made in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that for such erroneous calculation, the blame cannot be put on the Petitioner.‖ 9.6. This Court while rendering the aforesaid judgment, has taken into consideration the decision in Bihari Lal (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra). Neither the Screening Committee nor has the Nodal Officer considered the effect and impact of the aforesaid judgments on the instant fact-situation of the case. Therefore, the Office Order dated 30.05.2023 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal following the recommendations of the Screening Committee is quite illogical, irrational and bereft of reason. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 32 of 141 9.7. It is manifest from the Order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-7) read with reasons ascribed to in the Proceeding of the Screening Committee in the Meeting held on 28.02.2023 (Annexure-Q/2 of the counter affidavit) purported to have considered the reply to show cause issued pursuant to the direction of this Court vide Judgment dated 13.01.2023 that such show cause reply has not been considered seemly. 9.8. It is apt to understand the purport and object of “consider”. In Ram Chander Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1173, it was held that the word „consider‟ occurring in the Rule must mean the Authority shall duly apply its mind and give reasons for its decision. The duty to give reason is an incident of the judicial process and emphasized that in discharging quasi judicial functions the Authority must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and give reasons for its decision. 9.9. “Consideration” does not mean incidental or collateral examination of a matter by the Authority in the process of assessment/adjudication/determination. There must be something in the order to show that the Authority applied his mind to the particular subject- matter or the particular source of information with a view to arriving at its conclusion. See, Additional W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 33 of 141 Commissioner of Income Tax Vrs. Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1978 SC 40. 9.10. The word „consider‟ is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, „to think over‟, „to regard as‟, or „deem to be‟. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term „consider‟ postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory Authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material on record. The order of the Authority should reveal such application of mind. The Authority cannot simply adopt the language employed in the document before it and proceed to affirm the same. [Vide, Chairman, LIC of India Vrs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530; Nilamani Jal Vrs. Collector, 2016 (II) OLR 190 (Ori)]. 9.11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India for failure of the Appellate Authority to ascribe reasons in the matter of Steel Authority of India Limited Vrs. Sales Tax Officer, (2008) 10 SCR 655 = 2008 INSC 799 made the following observation: ―12. A bare reading of the order shows complete non- application of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 34 of 141 way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt by the first appellate authority. 13. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha Vrs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519]. 14. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen Vrs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed: ‗The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.‘ In Alexander Machinery Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed: (Dudley) Ltd. Vrs. ―Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.‖ ―Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.‖ Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ―inscrutable face of the sphinx‖, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 35 of 141 of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The ―inscrutable face of the sphinx‖ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi judicial performance.‖ 9.12. Where the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the Court is entitled to interfere. See, Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vrs. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). 9.13. With reference to Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vrs. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) the Hon‟ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Spectra Shares & Scrips Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. CIT, (2013) 354 ITR 35 (AP), has been pleased to make the observation that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact finding Tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it, the Court will not interfere. It is necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination, what was the evidence pro and contra in regard to each one of them W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 36 of 141 and what were the findings reached on the evidence on record before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by the Court. 9.14. “Reason”, being heartbeat of every decision making process, it has been restated in Nareshbhai Bhagubhai Vrs. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 1 as follows: ―In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vrs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 this Court held that: ‗12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially recognised a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi judicial orders but with the passage of time this Court W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 37 of 141 the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak Vrs. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262. *** 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure exercised by grounds and considerations. that discretion has been the decision-maker on relevant extraneous by disregarding (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi judicial and even by administrative bodies. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 38 of 141 (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. judicial to rule of trend in all countries (h) The ongoing committed law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) (j) (k) Judicial or even quasi judicial opinions these days can be as different as the Judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by factors have been reason objectively considered. This for important sustaining the litigants‘ faith in the justice delivery system. the relevant that is Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. If a Judge or a quasi judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ―rubber-stamp reasons‖ is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 39 of 141 the Judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. in ―Defence of Judicial Candor‖, (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37]. [See David Shapiro (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision- making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija Vrs. Spain, (1994) 19 EHRR 553 and Anya Vrs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, ‗adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions‘. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of ―due process‖.‖ 9.15. Conceding that giving reasons facilitates the detection of errors of law, this Court in Santosh Kumar Paikray Vrs. State of Odisha, 2016 (II) OLR 1131 (Ori) discussed importance of assignment of reason in the following lines: ―8. The meaning of the expression ‗reason‘ as stated by Franz Schubert: ‗reason is nothing but analysis of belief.‘ W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 40 of 141 In Black‘s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, ‗reason‘ has been defined as: ‗a faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and which enables the possessor to deduce inferences from facts and from propositions.‘ rather thought In other words, reason means the faculty of rational than some abstract relationship between propositions and by this faculty, it is meant the capacity to make correct inferences from propositions, to size up facts for what they are and what they imply, and to identify the best means to some end, and, in general, to distinguish what we should believe from what we merely do believe. The importance of giving reason, it reveals a rational nexus between facts considered and conclusions reached. 9. In Union of India Vrs. Madal Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 and Uma Charan Vrs. State of MP, AIR 1981 SC 1915, the Apex Court held reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. The fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons when an order affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact whether it is judicial, quasi W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 41 of 141 judicial or administrative. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record and it is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice.‖ 9.16. It is stated in State Bank of India Vrs. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1067 that individual judges can indeed have different ways of writing judgments and continue to have variations in their styles of expression. The expression of a judge is an unfolding of the recesses of the mind. However, while recesses of the mind may be inscrutable, the reasoning in judgment cannot be. While judges may have their own style of judgment writing, they must ensure lucidity in writing across these styles. 9.17. In Sical Logistics Ltd. Vrs. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2017 (II) ILR-CUT 1035, this Court has held as follows: It is well settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court time and again that the authority should pass reasoned order. Reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the authority can thus discharge in a meaningful manner either by furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference. its duty ―9. *** 11. It is well-settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 42 of 141 Vrs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851 that: ‗When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise an order bad in the beginning may by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.‘ of Police, Bombay Vrs. In Commissioner Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16, the Apex Court held as follows: ‗Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.‘ reference to Similar view has also been taken in Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel and others Vrs. State of Gujarat and another, (2008) 4 SCC 144 as well as in M/s. Shree Ganesh Construction Vrs. State of Orissa, 2016 (II) OLR 237 = 2016 (II) ILR-CUT 237. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 43 of 141 In the case of State of Punjab Vrs. Bandeep Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724 the Apex Court held that the validity of administrative orders/decisions/ executive instructions/orders/circulars must be judged by reasons stated in decision or order itself. Subsequent explanations or reasons cannot be accepted to sustain decision or order.‖ 9.18. Under the aforesaid premises, the reasons given in the counter affidavit in order to justify the decision taken in the decision-making process of the Screening Committee and the Nodal Officer cannot be countenanced. 10. Next it is relevant to consider whether the Screening Committee and the Nodal Officer have considered the plea of the petitioner in proper perspective as directed in the Judgment dated 13.01.2023. 10.1. Though the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in its Office Order dated 30.05.2023 has quoted paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Judgment dated 13.01.2023, whereby this Court specifically requested the Screening Committee “to take a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to show cause to the petitioners”, glossing through the “Proceedings of the Screening Committee Meeting held on 28.02.2023” (Annexure-Q/2 of the counter affidavit) it transpires that though the petitioner has responded to the notice W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 44 of 141 to show cause, none of the grounds/aspects found mentioned in the reply dated 20.02.2023 has been taken care of. The Screening Committee with terse voice stated “Pursuant to the Order of Hon‘ble High Court of Orissa, sufficient opportunity of being heard was extended to both Sri Ratnakar Sahoo, Senior Grade Typist and Sri Biran Kumar Biswal, Senior grade Typist. But both Sri Sahoo and Sri Biswal could not substantiate with reasons or pointed out anomaly in the Order dated 16.11.2021 of the Nodal Officer, Odissa Administrative Tribunal beyond the ground already resorted to in the W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022 filed by the petitioners respectively.” 10.2. The Screening Committee without discussing the implication of State of Odisha Vrs. Bihari Lal, 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 333 could not have abruptly jumped to the conclusion that the reduction of pay scale was just and proper. While issuing notice vide Letter dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure-8), the Officer-on-Special Duty, Odisha Administrative Tribunal appears to have fell in grave error by not examining the applicability of ratio of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334. 10.3. At this juncture it may be pertinent to have regard to The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vrs. The W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 45 of 141 State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307 wherein the following observation has been made: ―7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 8. At the outset it is required to be noted that the proceedings before the learned Single Judge of the High Court by way of writ petition No. 3884 of 1998 was with respect to 172 acres 22 guntas of land acquired. In the writ petition No. 3884 of 1998, the original land owners prayed for the following reliefs: *** 8.2 That the framed following common points for consideration: *** learned Single Judge the the fact the original Despite that a number of issues/grounds were raised before the High Court on the legality and validity of the acquisition proceedings, the learned Single issue, namely, Judge decided only one whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act. Whereas a number of issues/grounds were raised and as such (acquisition proceedings under Act 1894) were the main reliefs to be dealt with and which were required learned Single considered, unfortunately, the other Judge did not give issues/grounds and on the reliefs sought and as observed hereinabove, disposed of the writ relief/ground, petitions considering only one namely, whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act. When a number the findings on reliefs sought W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 46 of 141 of submissions were made on the other issues/grounds, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have considered the other issues and ought to have given the findings on other issues also. Because of not deciding the other issues and deciding the matter only on one issue and thereafter when the decision on such one issue, is held to be bad stated hereinbelow, this Court has no other alternative but to remand the matters to the learned Single Judge for deciding the Writ Petitions afresh on all other issues. reasons law the for in 8.3 By way of analogy we observe that while considering Order 14 Rule 2 (as amended w.e.f. 01.02.1977), this Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vrs. Ivory Properties & Others, (2020) 6 SCC 557, has observed and held that after the amendment w.e.f. 01.02.1977, though Order 14 Rule 2(2) enables the court to decide the issue of law as a preliminary issue in case the same relates to— (i) jurisdiction of Court or (ii) a bar to suit created by any law for the time being in force, a departure has been made in amended it mandates the court to pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. provision whereby now W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 47 of 141 It is further observed that intendment behind this departure is to avoid remand in an appealable case for deciding other issues. 8.4 Therefore, the Courts should adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues. As such it is the duty cast upon the Courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce the judgment on issues rather than adopting a all the shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would increase the burden on the appellate Court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved.‖ 10.4. Apposite it is to have reference to what has been imperatively enunciated in CCT Vrs. Shukla & Bros., (2010) 4 SCC 785: ―12. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 48 of 141 to exercise whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Thus, it will not be far from an absolute principle of law that the courts should record reasons for their conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the courts should record reasons for their conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. 13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judgment without judicial pronouncements. A W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 49 of 141 reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders. rule being applicable to 15. In Siemens Engg. and Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. Vrs. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 981 the Supreme Court held as under: W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 50 of 141 ‗6. *** If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of administrative law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that tribunals administrative authorities and should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law.‘ tribunals exercising quasi in 16. International Inc. Vrs. Burn In McDermott (2006) 11 SCC 181 the Standard Co. Ltd., Supreme Court clarified the rationality behind providing of reasons and stated the principle as follows: ‗56. *** ‗*** ―Reason‖ is a ground or motive for a belief or a course of action, a statement in justification or explanation of belief or action. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 51 of 141 It is in this sense that the award must state reasons for the amount awarded. The rationale of the requirement of reasons is that reasons assure that the arbitrator has not acted capriciously. Reasons reveal the grounds on which the arbitrator reached the conclusion which adversely affects the interests of a party. The contractual stipulation of reasons means, as held in Poyser and Mills‘ Arbitration, In re, (1964) 2 QB 467 = (1963) 2 WLR 1309 = (1963) 1 All ER 612, ―proper adequate reasons‖. Such reasons shall not only be intelligible but shall be a reason connected with the case which the court can see is proper. Contradictory reasons are equal to lack of reasons.‘ ‖2 17. In Gurdial Singh Fijji Vrs. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368 while dealing with the matter of selection of candidates who could be under review, if not found suitable otherwise, the Court explained the reasons being a link between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions and held, that where providing reasons for proposed supersession were essential, then it could not be held to be a valid reason that the concerned officer‘s record was not such as to justify his selection was not contemplated and thus was not legal. In this context, the Court held, ‗18. *** ‗Reasons‘ *** ‗are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are 2 [Ed.: As stated in Bachawat‘s Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., at pp. 855-56.] W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 52 of 141 based and the actual conclusions‘. The Court accordingly held the mandatory that provisions of Regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was ‗not found suitable‘ is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List.‘ This principle has been extended to administrative actions on the premise that it applies with greater rigour to the judgments of the courts. 18. In State of Maharashtra Vrs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129 while remanding the matter to the High Court for examination of certain issues raised, this Court observed: ‗2. *** It would be for the benefit of this Court that a speaking judgment is given.‘ 19. In the cases where the courts have not recorded reasons in the judgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the court of competent jurisdiction are challenged in the absence of proper discussion. The requirement of recording reasons is applicable with greater rigour to the judicial proceedings. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 53 of 141 granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court. 20. A Bench of the Bombay High Court in Pipe Arts India (P) Ltd. Vrs. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare, (2008) 6 Mah LJ 280, wherein the Bench was concerned with an appeal against an order, where prayer for an interim relief was rejected without stating any reasons in a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court noticed, that legality, propriety and correctness of the order was challenged on the ground that no reason was recorded by the learned Single Judge while rejecting this has seriously prejudiced the interest of justice. After a detailed discussion on the subject, the Court held: (Mah LJ pp. 283-87, paras 8, 10 & 12-22) the prayer and or administrative ‗8. The Supreme Court and different High Courts have taken the view that it is always desirable to record reasons in support of the Government actions whether quasi judicial. Even if the statutory rules do not impose an obligation upon the authorities still it is expected of the authorities concerned to act fairly and in consonance with basic rule of law. These concepts would require that any order, particularly, the order which can be subject- matter of judicial review, is reasoned one. Even in Chabungbam Ibohal Singh Vrs. Union of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 83 the Court held as under: W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 54 of 141 *** His assessment was, however, recorded as ―very good‖ whereas qua the appellant it had been stated ―unfit‖. As the appellant was being superseded by one of his juniors, we do not think if it was enough on the part of the Selection Committee to have merely stated ―unfit‖, and then to recommend the name of one of his juniors. No reason for unfitness is reflected in the proceedings, as against what earlier Selection Committees had done to which reference has already been made.‘ ‗8. *** 10. In Jawahar Lal Singh Vrs. Naresh Singh, (1987) 2 SCC 222 accepting the plea that absence of examination of reasons by the High Court on the basis of which the trial court discarded prosecution evidence and recorded the finding of an acquittal in favour of all the accused was not appropriate, the Supreme Court held that the order should reasons. Recording of proper record reasons would be essential, so that the appellate court would have advantage of considering the considered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which had weighed with the trial court. *** W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 55 of 141 12. that the High Court has In State of Punjab Vrs. Surinder Kumar, (1992) 1 SCC 489 while noticing the jurisdictional distinction between Article 142 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court stated that powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 are much wider and the Supreme Court would pass orders to do complete justice. The Supreme Court further reiterated the principle with approval the jurisdiction to dismiss petitions or criminal revisions in limine or grant leave asked for by the petitioner but for adequate reasons which should be recorded in the order. The High Court may not pass cryptic order in relation to regularisation of service of the respondents in view of certain directions passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Absence of reasoning did not find favour with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also stated the principle that powers of the High Court were circumscribed by limitations discussed and declared by judicial decision and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective opinion varying from Judge to Judge. 13. In Hindustan Times Ltd. Vrs. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 242 the Supreme Court while dealing with the cases under the labour laws and the Employees‘ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 observed that even when the petition under Article 226 W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 56 of 141 is dismissed in limine, it is expected of the High Court to pass a speaking order, may be briefly. 14. Consistent with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the afore-referred cases, in State of U.P. Vrs. Battan, (2001) 10 SCC 607 the Supreme Court held as under: ‗4. *** The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal. … The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. of On justice, the High Court ought to have reasons, howsoever brief, in its order. The absence of reasons has rendered not Court the High sustainable.‘ consideration plainest order forth set its 15. Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jha Vrs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519. 16. In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vrs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that the reasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Court should record W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 57 of 141 its reasons while disposing of the matter. The Court held as under: ‗8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen Vrs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 2 QB 175 = (1971) 2 WLR 742 = (1971) 1 All ER 1148] observed: (QB p. 191 C) „The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals good administration.‟ of In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vrs. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed: ‗Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.‘ ―Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.‖ Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ―inscrutable face of the sphinx‖, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 58 of 141 mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can the decision has gone know why the salutary against him. One of requirements of natural is justice spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The is ―inscrutable face of the sphinx‖ ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi judicial performance.‘ 17. Following this very view, the Supreme Court in another very recent judgment delivered on in State of Rajasthan Vrs. 22.02.2008, Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008) 15 SCC 711 stated that ‗reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless‘. 18. Providing of reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings. Every litigant who is approaches the court with a prayer entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such request. Either of the parties to the lis has a right of appeal and, therefore, it is essential for them to know the considered opinion of the court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may be subject to examination of the appellate or other higher courts. It is not only desirable but, in view of the consistent position of law, mandatory for the court to pass in orders while recording reasons Page 59 of 141 W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 support thereof, however, brief they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be understood in legal parlance as absence of reasons. While no reasoning in support of judicial orders is impermissible, the brief reasoning would suffice to meet the ends of justice at least at the interlocutory stages and would render the remedy of appeal purposeful and meaningful. It is a settled canon of legal jurisprudence that the courts are vested with discretionary powers but such powers are to be exercised judiciously, equitably and in consonance with the settled principles of law. Whether or not, such judicial discretion has been exercised in accordance with the accepted norms, can only be reflected by the reasons recorded in the order impugned before the higher court. that absence of it Often reasoning may indicate ipso whimsical exercise of judicial discretion. is said facto Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the article, ―The : Black-robed the Courts Problem with Bureaucracy or Collegiality Under Challenge‖ [42 Md L Rev 766, 782 (1983)] observed as under: ‗My own guiding principle is that virtually every appellate decision requires some statement of reasons. The discipline of writing even a few sentences or paragraphs explaining the basis for the judgment insures a level of thought and scrutiny by the court Page 60 of 141 W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 that a bare signal of affirmance, dismissal, or reversal does not.‘ 19. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that a losing litigant has a cause to plead and a right to challenge the order if it is adverse to him. Opinion of the court alone can explain the cause which led to passing of the final order. Whether an argument was rejected validly or otherwise, reasoning of the order alone can show. To evaluate the submissions is obligation of the court and to know the reasons for rejection of its contention is a legitimate expectation on the part of the litigant. Another facet of providing reasoning is to give it a value of precedent which can help in reduction of frivolous litigation. Paul D. Carrington, Daniel J Meador and Maurice (West Rosenburg, Justice on Appeal 10 1976), observed as under: process correcting ‗When reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that the is working. Announcing reasons can also provide public understanding the numerous of how decisions of the system are integrated. In a busy court, the reasons are an essential demonstration that the court did in fact fix its mind on the case at hand. An unreasoned decision has very little claim to acceptance by the defeated party, and is difficult or impossible to accept as an act reflecting systematic application of legal principles. Moreover, the necessity of stating reasons Page 61 of 141 W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 not infrequently changes the results by forcing the judges to come to grips with nettlesome facts or issues which their normal instincts would otherwise cause them to avoid.‘ 20. The reasoning in the opinion of the Court, thus, can effectively be analysed or scrutinised by the appellate court. The reasons indicated by the court could be accepted by the appellate court without presuming what weighed with the court while coming to the impugned decision. The cause of expeditious and effective disposal would be furthered by such an approach. A right of appeal could be created by a special statute or under the provisions of the procedure. In either of them, absence of reasoning may have the effect of negating the purpose or right of appeal and, thus, may not achieve the ends of justice. the Code governing in relation 21. It will be useful to refer words of Justice of Roslyn Atkinson, Supreme Court Queensland, at AIJA Conference at Brisbane on 13.09.2002 to Judgment Writing. Describing that some judgment could be routine requires deeper judgments, where one thoughts, and the other could be disposed of easily but in either cases, reasons they must have. While speaking about purpose of the judgment, he said, in distinction complex, to W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 62 of 141 ‗The first matter to consider is the purpose of the judgment. To my mind there are four purposes for any judgment that is written: (1) to clarify your own thoughts; (2) to explain your decision to the parties; (3) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and (4) to provide reasons for an appeal court to consider.‘ 22. Clarity of thought leads to proper reasoning and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vrs. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) the court went to the extent of observing that, fair decision. ‗Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.‘ Reasons are really the linchpin to administration of justice. They are the link between the mind of the decision- taker and the controversy in question. To justify our conclusion, reasons are essential. Absence of reasoning would render the liable to interference by the higher court. Reasons are the soul of the decision and its absence would render the order open to judicial chastisement. The consistent judicial opinion is that every order determining rights of the judicial order W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 63 of 141 parties in a court of law ought not to be recorded without supportive reasons. Issuing reasoned order is not only beneficial to the higher courts but is even of great utility for providing public understanding of law and imposing self-discipline in the Judge as their discretion is controlled by well-established norms. The contention raised before us that absence of reasoning in the impugned order would render the order liable to be set aside, particularly, in face of the fact that the learned Judge found merit in the writ petition and issued rule, therefore, needs to be accepted. We have already noticed that orders even at interlocutory stages may not be as detailed as judgments but should be supported by reason howsoever briefly stated. is impermissible in judicial pronouncement. It cannot be disputed that the order in question substantially affect the rights of the parties. There is an award in favour of the workmen and the management had prayed for stay of the operation of the award. The court has to consider such a plea keeping in view the provisions of Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, where such a prayer impermissible nor improper. The contentions raised by the parties in support of their respective claims are expected to be dealt with by reasoned orders. We are not intentionally expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions alleged to have been raised by respective is neither reasoning Absence of W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 64 of 141 parties before the learned Single Judge. Suffice it to note that the impugned order is silent in this regard. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, various contentions were raised in support of the reliefs claimed but all apparently, have found no favour with the learned Judge and that too for no reasons, as is demonstrated from the order impugned in the present appeals.‘ 21. The principles stated by this Court, as noticed supra, have been reiterated with approval by a Bench of this Court in a very recent judgment, in State of Uttaranchal Vrs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, (2008) 11 SCC 205, where the Court noticed the order of the High Court which is reproduced hereunder: ‗8. *** ‗I have perused the order dated 27-5- 2005 passed by Respondent 2 and I do not find any illegality in the order so as to interfere under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.‘ ‘ and the Court concluded as under: ‗9. In view of the specific stand taken by the Department in the affidavit which we have referred to above, the cryptic order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. Vrs. Battan, (2001) 10 SCC 607. W.P.(C) No.28862 of 2023 Page 65 of 141 two decades back