The court emphasized the principle of compensating a wronged person and putting him back in the same position as he would have been in, had no wrong been committed, and discussed the discretion of the court in ordering payment of full salary or a percentage of it upon reinstatement.

Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ., and Jagdish Bhalla, J.

We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Sharma in his Lordship's order dated 19.5.2005 allowing the Respondent-writ Petitioner's claim.

2. The facts as found by his Lordship are:

(i) The writ Petitioner was appointed in U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation, Lucknow in a permanent post of a Salesman on 4.10.1975.

(ii) on the basis of the recommendation of a Selection Committee he was promoted as Assistant Commercial Inspector on 6.9.1982

(iii) although he had worked for 13 years continuously in the promotee post a letter of permanent appointment to that permanent post which was in existence was not forthcoming ;

(iv) on 6.5.1995 he was summarily terminated.

3. On these facts a writ court has no alternative but to allow the writ petition in toto. A permanent employee promoted and terminated as if he were a daily wager employed yesterday is impossible to support in law. There was no charge, no inquiry, no show cause notice-nothing at all. He was just asked to go.

4. The Respondents have delayed the filing of this appeal by 30 days but there is a condonation application on records. The Respondent did not contest any of the facts pleaded in the writ petition in the Court below by filing an affidavit in opposition although the writ petition was disposed of nearly 10 years after it was filed.

5. The learned Judge proceeded on the case of Choksi Tube Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1997) 11 SCC 179 and held that the statements in the petition are taken to be admitted since those are not denied. In our respectful opinion this was a correct way of going about the case. The normal rule applicable in adversary proceedings of accepting undenied statements is applicable in Government cases also ; the Court only has to use some circumspection and avoid mechanical acceptance of facts pleaded by the writ Petitioner. If the facts are illogical, absurd or even so unlikely as to excite the suspicion of the Court, the Court might call give further opportunity or compel production of records, etc. But in a normal case like this where nothing appears to be wrong or false or unusual the Court is best advised to proceed on the principle of admission and conclude the case without further delay.

6. The wrongful and summary order of termination having come on or about 6.5.1995, the learned Judge at the time of disposal of the case just after 10 years directed full payment of all arrears salary at the time his Lordship ordered reinstatement.

7. Ten years' salary would be a substantial sum and the reason why agree with his Lordship's order is set out below.

8. At the time of reinstatement, whether by quashing a summary order of termination or setting aside an order of termination after setting aside an order passed on due inquiry, the Court has a discretion in writ matters to order payment of full salary or no salary or even a percentage of it.

9. The matter not being a suit as between a master and a servant, the normal rules of damages applicable to those cases do not apply in their strict terms. A reinstated public servant cannot claim as of right such sums to which he would have been entitled had his service not been terminated wrongfully. But this does not mean that the principle of compensation is not paid any attention to by the writ courts even in cases of reinstatement of public servants.

10. In our respectful opinion, on the basis of Supreme Court cases which we refer to below, the normal principle of compensating a wrong person and putting him back in the same position as he would have been in, had no wrong been committed, and in so far as payment of money can do so, is borne in the mind by the writ courts and this principle is applied at the time of passing of the final order also.

11. However, the discretion in writ matters is more. The Court can look at the circumstances of dismissal ; the Court can put a