M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. v. MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 442

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, DALVEER BHANDARI

Case summary

M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. v. MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

M. D. , U. P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. v. MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. OCTOBER 12, 2007 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ. ] Service Law-Dismissalfi'om service-C,hallenged-High Court ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits-On appeal, held: Order ofreinstatementjust{fied Prahlad. Sharma v. State ofUP. andOrs. , [2004] 4SCC113, relied on CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 19. 1. 2006 ofthe 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 ofthe Court was delivered by TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3.. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th ofJanuary, 2006 ofa learned Judge ofthe 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 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 ofthe above facts, the writ petition deseives to be allowed and accordingly an order/direction in the nature ofcertiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 11. 12. 2000 passed by the opposite paiiy No. 3 as contained in Annexure No. 8 9fthis 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 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. , (2004] 4 SCC 113. In view ofthe 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 and the order ofthe High Court has already been implemented and backwages have been paid. This judgment and order shall not be treated as a precedent in case ofsimilarly situated persons. K. K. T. Appeal allotved.