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

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

                             OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
      [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]


      Service Law-Dismissalfi'om service-C,hallenged-High Court
  ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits-On appeal, held:
C Order ofreinstatement just{fied

         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.
         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 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