JUDGMENT 1. - This is a writ petition filed by applicant of Original Application No.250/2010 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 09.05.2011 passed in the aforementioned original application. 2. By impugned order, learned Member of the Tribunal dismissed the original application of the applicant (writ petitioner herein) and declined to grant any relief to him. 3. So, the question for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the tribunal was justified in dismissing the original application of the writ petitioner thereby justified in declining to grant any relief to the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we have formed an opinion to allow the writ petition and while setting aside of the impugned order, remand the case to the tribunal for deciding the original application of the writ petitioner afresh on merits, for the reasons mentioned infra. 5. Without burdening our order by narrating the facts in detail, except those which are necessary for deciding this writ petition, it is noticed that writ petitioner filed the original application, seeking following reliefs "(a) The impugned order dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure-A/1) issued by respondent no.4 containing instruction to respondent no.5, withdrawing the higher pay grade granted to the applicant and directions for recovery issued thereunder and impugned order dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure-A/2), passed by the respondent no.5, for withdrawing higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and higher pay scale granted to the applicant and orders of recovery of amount paid under higher pay, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. (b) The higher pay scale in the Grade-Pay of corresponding Pay Band of Rs. 4600/- granted to the applicant on fixation of his pay on promotion to the post of Chargeman-I, may kindly be protected and be continued to be retained by the applicant." 6. The aforesaid reliefs were declined by the tribunal by passing the following order:- "The applicant seeks to protect the benefits of the promotion granted to him w.e.f. 01.05.2008 to the post of Chargeman-I. But whether he was entitled to promotion as MCM on the two occasions or not, is a not matter covered by the pleadings and the relief, therefore which can be raised by the applicant at a proper forum, if so advised, at a later date. 2. 2. The 6th Central Pay Commission report was implemented with a back date of 01.01.2006. There is methodology of pick and choose available since the 6th Central Pay Commission merged pay scales of Chargeman-II and Chargeman-I, refixation of the pay had become necessary. It is to be noted that the applicant had received other benefits also on the basis of 6th Central Pay Commission, therefore, it is a cumulative process, the applicant can only accept it as a choice in an election as a whole. Having accepted it, the applicant cannot now turn around and say that the benefits which he had secured in 6th Central Pay Commission must continue with him, but what negativity he got along with the 6th Central Pay Commission must be redressed, such a statement cannot be accepted. 3. The Original Application lacks merit, therefore, it is dismissed. No order as to costs." 7. Mere perusal of the aforequoted reliefs and the impugned order, would go to show that there is no discussion, much less finding recorded by the Tribunal in regard to two orders, which were challenged in the original application. Similarly, there is no discussion, much less finding as to how and on what basis and for what reasons, the impugned orders dated 23.04.2010 and 19.08.2010 are good or/and legal and if so, why and if bad in law, then why? We also do not find that there is any reference to any of the submissions, if urged by the applicant and the respondent in support of their respective contentions and how and why they are acceptable or why they are not acceptable ? In substance, in our view, in the absence of any finding, much less categorical finding on the issue for which original application was filed, the order dismissing the original application cannot be upheld. 8. Since the issue raised in the O. A. was not considered in its correct proper perspective and, therefore, we cannot examine the issue arising in the case for the first time in appeal and hence consider it proper to remand the case to the tribunal for deciding the original application afresh on its merits, by recording categorical finding as to whether the impugned orders dated 24.04.2010 and 19.08.2010 are capable of being legally sustained and if so, how and if not, then why ? Needless to observe this issue will have to be decided, keeping in view the submissions urged by the applicant and replied to by the respondents.Petition allowed. *******