{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.152/2003 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VS. SHRI DOONGAR SINGH & ANR. Date of Judgment : 09.11.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is a writ petition filed by the non-applicant of O.A No 274 of 2000 under article 227 of constitution of India against an order dated 24.1.2002 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (for short hereinafter called as Tribunal) in aforementioned original application. 2. By impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the application of the applicant (respondent herein) and in consequence issued certain directions to petitioner herein i.e. (railways) for its compliance. 3. So the question that arise for consideration in this writ petition is whether Tribunal was justified in allowing the original application ? { 2 } 4. This is what the Tribunal held while passing the impugned order. Indeed, the Tribunal passed a very short order and hence it is appropriate to reproduce the order of the Tribunal in verbatim. “Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the controversy raised in this OA has already been adverted to and decided by this Tribunal in OA 225/99 on 18.5.2001. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the present OA is not covered by the decision aforesaid and, therefore, this OA cannot be decided in terms of the order aforesaid. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings and submissions in this application, we find that this case is squarely covered by the decision dated 18.5.2001 in O.A. 225/99. This OA is, therefore, finally disposed of in terms of the order passed in OA 225/99 on 18.5.2001. The benefits extended the applicant is that OA shall also be extended to the present applicant, however, w.e.f. 1.4.98. The respondents shall comply with this order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as { 3 } well as copy of the earlier order dated 18.5.2001, passed in OA 225/99, is produced before the authority concerned. No cost.” 5. As stated supra, it is this order which is sought to be impugned by the writ petitioner in this writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record of the case, we have formed an opinion to allow this writ petition and remand the case to Tribunal, by setting aside the impugned order for its decision on merits of the original application out of which this writ petition arises. It is for this reason we do not wish to burden our order by narrating the facts of the case in detail except to mention those facts which are necessary to remand the case. 7. Suffice it to say, the dispute for which the original application was filed by the applicant (respondent herein) relates inter alia to his status in the service of the petitioner, namely what is his status in the services of the petitioner. 8. In our considered view the need to remand the original application has arisen because firstly there is no discussion much less reasoning given by the tribunal such as what was the case of applicant, how and on what basis he was claiming the relief, and how and on what basis his case is covered by the decision rendered in O.A.No 225/99. 9. In our opinion, in order to extend the benefit of any decision rendered in other cases which according to { 4 } Tribunal was similar in nature, it was necessary for the Tribunal to have first taken note of facts relating to the case of applicant, the stand of the non-applicant. It is only then, the case should have been compared with the facts of the case decided in O.A. 225/99 with a view to find out as to whether both these cases stand on same footing and if so whether applicant can also be granted the same benefit which has been granted in other case by the Tribunal as has been relied on by the applicant, on the ground of parity. 10. Since in this case, we have noticed that tribunal did not decide the question involved on these lines, which in our opinion, was required to be decided, and hence we can not uphold such order. 11. In view of the forgoing discussion, which alone is sufficient, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.1.2002 passed in O.A.274/2000 out of which this writ petition arises is set aside. As a consequence, the original application i.e. O.A.274 of 2000 is restored to file for its disposal in accordance with law on merits keeping in view our observations made above. Parties are granted an opportunity to amend their pleadings in case if they so wish. The Tribunal would issue notice to the applicant before the Tribunal for the hearing because in this writ petition none appeared on behalf of the respondent though served. 12. Let the application be decided within six months from the date of party’s appearance. It would be for the writ petitioner who is non-applicant before the Tribunal to appear { 5 } before the Tribunal and produce the copy of this order to enable the Tribunal to proceed to decide the case. The writ petitioner would appear on 29.11.2010. ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/