A
M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD.
B
v.
MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 12, 2007
[TAR UN CHATTERJEE AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
Service Law-Dismissal fi'om service-C,hallenged-High Court
ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits-On appeal, held:
C Order of reinstatement just{fied
Prahl ad.Sharma v. State of UP. and Ors., [2004] 4SCC113, relied
on
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4889 of
D 2007.
E
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.1.2006 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in W.P. No. 7(S/S)
of2001.
Rajesh for the Appellant.
Sunil Kumar Jain, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Nikhil Majithia,
Prashant Kumar, Arjun (for AP and J Chambers) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
T ARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3 .. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th
G of January, 2006 of a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in WP
No. 7150 (S/S) of 2000 and WP No.7 (S/S) of 2001.
·4. In the writ petitions, the writ petitioner had challenged an order
dated 1 lth of December, 2000, by which he was dismissed from the
H
442
M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. v; 443
MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA [CHATTERJEE, J .]
service. By the impugned order, the High Court has allowed the writ A
petitions in the following manner:
"In view of the above facts, the writ petition deseives to be allowed
and accordingly an order/direction in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2000 passed by
the opposite paiiy No. 3 as contained in Annexure No. 8 9f this B
writ petition.
Since writ petition No. 7 (S/S) of2001 has already been aHowed
so no relief in writ Petition No. 7150 of2000 is being granted.
The Petitioner would be reinstated on his services in accorClance c
with the order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the opposite party No.
2 and petitioner may be given all consequential benefits induding
the arrears of salary etc. etc."
5. The question involved in this appeal is covered by a decision of
this Court in the case of Prahlad Sharma v. State of U.P. and;Ors., D
(2004] 4 SCC 113. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Cowrt and
as the case is covered by the aforesaid decision, this appeal is dismissed.
I
There will be no order as to costs.
6. We are informed that the Respondent has already been reinstated E
and the order of the High Court has already been implemented and back-
wages have been paid. This judgment and order shall not be treated as
a precedent in case of similarly situated persons.
K.K.T.
Appeal allotved.
F
Lex