Himachal Pradesh High Court
P.S. Dipta vs Union Of India And Another on 22 October, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CWP No. 3445 of 2012-E
Date of Decision: 22.10.2018
.
P.S. Dipta ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and another ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
For the Respondents: Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior
Panel Counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)
In the present petition, so filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner lays challenge to order dated 2.2.2012, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in O.A. No.288/HP/2011, titled as P.S. Dipta vs. Union of India and another.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the order needs to be 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2018 22:55:59 :::HCHP 2quashed and set aside solely for the reason that the decision is devoid of any reasoning. The order so to say is absolutely cryptic and unreasoned.
3. Operative portion of the order reads as under:-
.
"7. We have considered the averments and the arguments advanced on behalf of the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record placed before us.
8. The claim of the applicant is based on tripartite agreement on the basis of which O.A. filed in the Principal Bench was rendered infructuous. Since as per BSNL M.S.S. Rules, 2009, the next promotion to the higher grade r has to be as per these rules and the applicant attained the eligibility on 1.1.2012, we are of the considered view that no case is made out by the applicant to issue directions for the grant of promotion before he attains the eligibility.
9. Accordingly we find that the present O.A. is not only time barred but bereft of any merit and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs."
4. How the petitioner's claim qua eligibility on the basis of tripartite agreement was rendered infructuous, remains unexplained. Also, in our ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2018 22:55:59 :::HCHP 3 considered view, the issues raised by the parties have not been dealt with at all.
5. Ordinarily, we would have ourselves decided the matter, but refrain from doing so, for it would only be .
prudent that the Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, adjudicates the issues and determines its findings thereupon.
6. For all the aforesaid reasons, we quash and set aside order dated 2.2.2012, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, No.288/HP/2011, titled as P.S. Dipta vs. Union of India and another, with the matter being remanded back to the in O.A. authority for consideration afresh on the issues, factual in nature.
7. The Original Application is revived and restored to its original number and position. Parties, through counsel, undertake to appear before the Tribunal, on 12.11.2018. An endeavour shall be made to decide the application expeditiously and preferably, within a period of three months thereafter.
8. Needless to add, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left open.
::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2018 22:55:59 :::HCHP 4With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol), .
Judge 22nd October, 2018 (KS) (Chander Bhusan Barowalia), Judge.
r to
::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2018 22:55:59 :::HCHP