Summary
The Court set aside a remand for reconsideration of retirement benefits that constrained the State by earlier findings, and also reversed an order summoning the Principal Secretary to explain a fresh speaking decision. The employee’s conduct in joining another State’s institution without sanctioned leave required consideration. Her challenge to the fresh rejection remained for the High Court to decide independently after hearing both sides.
Issues
- Whether the earlier remand improperly restricted lawful reconsideration of the retirement-benefits claim.
- Whether the officer’s personal appearance was justified merely because he passed a fresh rejection order.
Held
- The High Court overlooked the employee’s conduct in joining the other institution while leave was pending and subsequently seeking earned leave for personal work. Its direction to reconsider in accordance with law should not have been constrained by its existing observations; the earlier order could not stand. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The Principal Secretary had passed a fresh speaking order following reconsideration. Mere disagreement with that decision did not warrant requiring his personal appearance; an unlawful administrative decision could be judicially reviewed and set aside through ordinary remedies. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The pending writ challenge to the fresh order of 4 January 2019 must proceed with sufficient opportunity to both parties, uninfluenced by the findings in the earlier writ judgment. Final entitlement was left for that adjudication. (¶ 20)
Result
Both appeals allowed, with parties bearing their own costs. The High Court orders of 24 August 2018 and 15 March 2019 were set aside. The High Court was directed to hear Writ-A No.3884 of 2019 independently in accordance with law after affording both parties sufficient opportunity.