M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. v. MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-2007-11-442-443
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Service Law-Dismissalfi'om service-C,hallenged-High Court ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits-On appeal,
Held
Order ofreinstatement just{fied
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
A
OCTOBER 12, 2007 B
Prahlad.Sharma v. State ofUP. and Ors., [2004] 4SCC113, relied on CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4889 of D 2007. 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. E Rajesh for the Appellant. Sunil Kumar Jain, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Nikhil Majithia, Prashant Kumar, Arjun (for AP and J Chambers) for the Respondents.
Judgment
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F TARUN 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 1lth 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 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 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."
55. 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.
66. 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
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0