AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Kumar Mittal, CJ
The State has filed the present writ appeal impugning the judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.380 of 2013.
Learned Advocate General submitted that the writ petition was filed in the year 2013 wherein the following prayer was made:-
"In the light of the circumstances and facts afforested it is therefore pleaded that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this instant petition, issue notice and upon rule being issued be pleased to pass necessary Order(s)/Direction(s) to the effect of directing the State respondents from exploring necessary options for to frame necessary rules for payment of pensionary/retirement benefits to the members of the Petitioner's Association and/or pass necessary Order(s)/Direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
The amended writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) on 04.10.2018 wherein the following prayer was made:-
"In the light of the circumstances and facts aforestated it is therefore pleaded that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this instant petition, issue notice and upon rule being issued be pleased to pass necessary Order(s)/Direction(s) to the effect of directing the State Respondents to make necessary payments of pensionary/retirement benefits to the members of the Petitioner's Association in strict adherence to the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Recommendation Commission Report and/or pass necessary Order(s)/Direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
Referring to the impugned judgment it was contended that hearing on the amended writ petition took place on 05.10.2018 and 08.10.2018 and judgment was delivered on 11.10.2018.
According to the learned Advocate General hearing of the amended writ petition took place on 05.10.2018 and 08.10.2018 and judgment was delivered on 11.10.2018 without providing any opportunity to the appellant-State to file any response or counter to the averments and the prayer made in the amended writ petition. On the aforesaid premises, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Learned Advocate General put forth that the judgment impugned in this writ appeal is in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be remitted back to the learned Single Judge so that an opportunity is provided to the appellant-State to file response or counter to the amended writ petition before any final view can be taken in the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondent was unable to controvert the factual averment regarding not providing adequate opportunity to the State for filing response or counter to the amended writ petition.
In view of the above without entering into the merits of the controversy, since the impugned judgment and the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant-State to file response or counter to the amended writ petition, the judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 is hereby set aside and quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge who shall now proceed in the matter after providing an opportunity to the appellant-State to file response or counter to the amended writ petition in accordance with law.
Writ appeal is disposed of as above.