- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 12 October 2007
- Bench
- Tarun Chatterjee, Dalveer Bhandari
- Result
- Appeal allotved.
Headnote
Service Law-Dismissal fi'om service-C,hallenged-High Court ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits-On appeal, held: Order of reinstatement just{fied
Prahl ad.Sharma v. State of UP. and Ors., [2004] 4SCC113, relied on
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
T ARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Delay condoned.
¶2Leave granted.
3 .. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th 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 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 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."
¶5The 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 of the aforesaid decision of this Cowrt and as the case is covered by the aforesaid decision, this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. I
¶6We are informed that the Respondent has already been reinstated 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.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 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.
Appearances
Rajesh for the Appellant.
Sunil Kumar Jain, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Nikhil Majithia, Prashant Kumar, Arjun (for AP and J Chambers) for the Respondents.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.