Tarun Agarwala, J. - (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. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 6.5.2008 and the order of termination was quashed. As a result of the quashing of the order of termination, the department reinstated the petitioner on 28.5.2008. The petitioner has now prayed that he should be given the arrears from 1.7.2006, i.e., from the date of his termination till the date of reinstatement. In my view no relief can be granted to the petitioner. When the Court quashed the order of reinstatement, no orders were passed for payment of arrears. It is necessary implies that the relief of arrears of salary was denied to the petitioner.
(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. In Mrs. Harbans Kaur Vs. Sardar (Ch) Narendra Singh and Anr, 1992 AWC 1398 and in Tannary and Footwear Corporation Vs. T. Rudra, Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Ors. 1996 Cr.LJ 1601, the Court held that there was no wilful contempt on the part of the respondents in not paying the salary to the applicant since there was no specific direction for the payment of the salary by the Court. In the Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and Ors., (2005) 3 UPLBEC 2415, the order of termination was set aside and there was no specific direction for the payment of the arrears of salary. The Court held that there was no contempt against the opposite parties since there was no specific direction for the payment of the salary. The said principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions is clearly applicable in the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, the order of dismissal was set aside and the Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner. There was no specific direction for the payment of the arrears of the salary while reinstating the petitioner. That judgement has now become final. Consequently, applying the aforesaid principles, as enunciated in the aforesaid decisions since there was no specific direction of payment of arrears of salary, the petitioner could not get the arrears of salary automatically upon his reinstatement. The Supreme Court has held in a large number of cases that payment of arrears of salary upon reinstatement is not automatic and each and every case has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case.;