ORDER : Rule. 2. Mr. P. Ravindra, learned Counsel for Mr. A.R. Holla, appears for the respondent and waives notice of the Rule. 3. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides, the petition is finally heard. 4. The only question to be considered in the present petition is whether the order passed by the Tribunal which does not record the satisfactory reasons for consideration of the defence of the original respondents petitioners herein can be sustained in the eye of law. 5. We need not refer to the facts in detail but it can be summarized to the extent which is relevant for the purpose of this petition. 6. The respondent original applicant before the Tribunal preferred Original Application to quash the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by respondent No.3 as well as the another order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the original respondent No.3third petitioner herein. The another prayer was made by the applicant before the Tribunal to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the applicant for grant of benefit of 1st and 2nd financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP for short) with effect from 09.08.1999 and 01.08.2007 and 3rd MACP benefit from 30.04.2013 with consequential benefits. 7. In response to the process issued by the Tribunal, the original respondents petitioners herein appeared before the Tribunal and not only resisted the application made before the Tribunal, but contended inter alia that respective MACPs are already granted as and when it had become due. However, the Tribunal without considering the said aspect has directed the respondents to look into it and take appropriate action against the person who has created this mess. Not only that, but the Tribunal made further observations in paragraph2 without considering the defence of the respondents petitioners herein. 8. It is hardly required to be stated that before arriving at a particular decision, it would be excepted for the Tribunal to consider the defence of the respondents and thereafter to record its own reasons for either accepting the defence or rejecting the defence of the respondents. 9. In the present case, the defence of the petitioners here in original respondents was that they have already granted MACP. 9. In the present case, the defence of the petitioners here in original respondents was that they have already granted MACP. If the Tribunal was to negate the defence, it was required for the Tribunal to record the reasons as to how the granting of MACP by the petitioners herein was not proper or that why defence of the petitioners should be not be accepted. Nothing is considered on the said aspects. 10. Under the circumstances, we find that the reasons recorded by the Tribunal are not at all satisfactory and it can also be said that the order was passed by the Tribunal without properly considering the defence of the petitioners original respondents before the Tribunal. We do not propose to make any observations on the other merits of the matter, since we are inclined to remand the matter to the Tribunal and any observations made by us in the present order on merits may prejudice the rights of the either party. Hence, we have refrained from making any further observations on the merits of the matter for entitlement of MACP and if yes, from which date. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside with the direction that the main Original Application shall stand restored to the Tribunal for reconsideration on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the present order. It is further observed that rights and contentions of both the sides in the matter before the Tribunal shall remain open to be considered in accordance with law. 12. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.