Supreme Court of India
M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. versus MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. on 12 October 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
A
M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. v.
MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.
B
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.
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.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
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
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. allotved. F