H.S. BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has claimed judicial review of the order dated 31.8.2001 (Annexure A-8) passed by the respondent No. 1 a mercy petition by which he was reinstated subject to a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect but without any back wages on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The petitioner was a Head Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police service. He was dismissed from service by order dated 1.11.1975 passed by the Superintendent of Police on charges having been proved against him in a departmental enquiry. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the order of his dismissal but it was dismissed on 17.2.1976. He then preferred a revision and it too was dismissed on 28.5.1976. His mercy petition was, however, allowed by the State Government by order dated 31.8.2001, Annexure A-8, by which he was reinstated subject to a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect but without any back wages. The petitioner has asserted that he was entitled for the back wages also and hence the order dated 31.8.2001, Annexure A-8, be accordingly reviewed judicially. There is no averment in the petition that the petitioner has any statutory right for filing a mercy petition, The petitioner, therefore, must remain satisfied with the relief that he has been able to obtain in the mercy petition. Orders passed in a mercy petition are not subject to judicial review for 'mercy is not the subject of legal rights'. It begins where legal rights end. See de Freitas v. Benny, (1975) 3 WLR 388 at pages 394, 395 (PC) quoted in Reckley v. Minister of Public Safety and Immigration, (1996) 1 All ER 562 at page 569 (PC). Further, there is also no averment in the petition that petitioner was not gainfully employed between the period of his dismissal and reinstatement. The petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.