JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.R. Nigam, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The above noted writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad. 3. The petitioner preferred an Original Application No. 486 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Northern Central Railway, Allahabad by which his claim for grant of pay protection and other financial benefits being paid to his junior counter parts, was denied to him. 4. The Original application has been dismissed vide order dated 12.5.2009 by the following orders : “3. We have perused the impugned order as well as the legal grounds contained in para 5 of the OA. None of the Legal grounds (taken in para 5 of the OA) are being substantiated on record. In fact in ground ‘B’ it is alleged that representation of the applicants have not been considered. This contention does not survive as the same has now been decided vide order dated 17.11.2008 (impugned in this OA). Ground ‘C’ and ‘D’ contains no legal ground and nearly narrates the past history leading to the filing of the OA No. 302 of 2007 and its decision vide order dated 27.8.2008. In ground ‘E’ that respondent No. 2 has not made a ‘fair conclusion in the matter’, is no legal ground. The other ground alleging that authority has not been unjust and unfair and there is ‘non-application’ of mind are the allegations the impugned order shows that respondents have ‘applied mind’ and given ‘cogent reason’. 4. There is no merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.” 5. A perusal of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad shows that it has been decided without application of mind. No reasons have been recorded for dismissing Original Application. In the entire order, there is no discussion of facts of the case and no reasons have been recorded touching the merits of the case nor rival contentions of the parties have been discussed. 6. No reasons have been recorded for dismissing Original Application. In the entire order, there is no discussion of facts of the case and no reasons have been recorded touching the merits of the case nor rival contentions of the parties have been discussed. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633 ” has held that judgment is the expression of the opinion of the Court arrived at after due consideration of the evidence and the arguments, it means a judicial determination. 7. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad does not shows any application of judicial discretion, which requires a Judge of Court to decide the case on what is fair under the circumstances and while doing so the Court or a Judge is guided by the Rules and Principles of Law. The Apex Court in the case of “Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15 ” has held that on the basis of judicial discretion, the Court decides whether to act or not to act when the litigant’s demand is before it. 8. In view of the above legal position, order dated 12.5.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad is set aside and the Original Application No. 486 of 2009 is directed to be decided again within a period of two months by the Tribunal in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent above, however, there shall be no order as to costs.