SUSHEEL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 1.7.2006 till date along with the interest. It transpires that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable and his services were terminated by an order dated 3.1.2007. THE petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9186 of 2007 in which he prayed the following reliefs:- "(a) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3. 1 2007, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, respondent no.2 (annexure-3 to the present writ petition). (b) issue a suitable, writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's functioning as Constable in the respondent department. (c) issue such other and further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; so that justice be done. (d) award cost of the petition throughout to petitioner as against the respondents.

(3.) IN the case of M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South INdian Trust Association, Madras, AIR 1992 SC 1439, the Supreme Court held that if there is no specific direction by a Court of law to reinstate a person, consequently, the respondents could not be held liable for any wilful contempt for not reinstating that person.