{"id":10378,"date":"2010-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-17T07:49:48","modified_gmt":"2016-09-17T02:19:48","slug":"t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 11014 of 2006(J)\n\n\n1. T.K.VANCHI, AGED 61 YEARS, S\/O.LATE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. J.CHACKO, AGED 58, S\/O.LATE\n3. P.K.ALEXANDER VAIDYAN, 58 YEARS,\n4. V.GOVINDAN, 56 YEARS,\n5. ROSELINE RAJAN, 58 YEARS,\n6. RAJASEKHARAN C.WARRIER,\n7. C.S.BABU, S\/O.LATE C.A.SANKU,\n8. S.PARAMESWARAN, 56 YEARS,\n9. C.P.BALAKRISHNAN,   61 YEARS,\n10. P.G.ARAVINDAKSHAN, 58 YEARS,\n11. SABU LONAPPAN, AGED 48 YEARS,\n12. SAJU PETER, 51 YEARS, S\/O.K.J.PETER,\n13. K.T.THRESSIA, AGED 55  YEARS,\n14. T.CHERRY JOB, AGED 54 YEARS, S\/O.LATE\n15. P.V.DAKSHINA MOORTHY, 56 YEARS,\n16. V.C.THOMAS, 55 YEARS, S\/O.LATE\n17. N.VASUDEVAN, AGD 56 YEARS,\n18. P.NARAYANAN KUTTY, 60 YEARS,\n19. N.S.SANKARAN, 54 YEARS,\n20. K.P.SURESH KUMAR, 57 YEARS,\n21. S.S.RAMAN, AGED 55 YEARS,\n22. P.U.MOHANDAS, AGED 60 YEARS,\n23. ANSON FABER, AGED 60 YEARS,\n24. T.A.VARGHIS, AGED 57 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,\n\n3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.BOBBY MATHEW, CGC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :06\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       S. SIRI JAGAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n          Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The petitioners are retired employees of the Oriental<\/p>\n
Insurance Company Ltd.                 The Government of India<\/p>\n
promulgated the General Insurance Officer’s Special<\/p>\n
Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 in exercise of powers<\/p>\n
conferred by Section 17A of the General Insurance Business<\/p>\n
(Nationalization) Act, 1972, by which employees of the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent were offered a chance to retire voluntarily<\/p>\n
with certain benefits guaranteed as per the scheme<\/p>\n
formulated by the Government. That scheme is Ext.P1 in<\/p>\n
the writ petition. The petitioners opted for the benefits of<\/p>\n
the scheme and retired voluntarily as per the provisions of<\/p>\n
the scheme.     They received benefits due under Ext.P1<\/p>\n
scheme on such voluntary retirement.                   Subsequently the<\/p>\n
pay of the employees of the 3rd respondent company were<\/p>\n
revised with retrospective effect from a date anterior to the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006
\n                                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
date of retirement of the petitioners.               According to the<\/p>\n
petitioners, they are also entitled to the benefits of such<\/p>\n
retrospective pay revision and also to have the benefits<\/p>\n
under Ext.P1 scheme calculated on the basis of their<\/p>\n
revised pay in accordance with the retrospective revision of<\/p>\n
pay. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
      “i)    Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
\n      appropriate writ or order or direction, calling for the records
\n      leading to issue of Ext.P-2 and quash the same to the extent it
\n      denies the benefit of revision of pay to the incumbents who
\n      sought Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme under Ext.P-1.<\/p>\n
      ii)    Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
\n      or order of direction, directing the respondents to grant the
\n      petitioners arrears of pay and allowances on the revised terms
\n      of pay from 01-08-2002 to the date of severance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iii)   Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
\n      or order or direction, directing the respondents to grant
\n      proportionate revision of pension and other terminal benefits
\n      on the basis of revised pay and allowances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iv)    Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
\n      or order or direction, directing the respondents to grant
\n      enhanced leave surrender benefit and DCRG on the basis of the
\n      revised pay and allowances pursuant to Ext.P-2 and other
\n      further terminal benefits as may be granted in revision of pay
\n      and allowances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      v)     Declare that the petitioners are entitled for notional
\n      fixation of pay and allowances and consequential payment of
\n      arrears of salary from 01-08-2002 to date of their severance,
\n      consequential revision of pension and other terminal benefits,
\n      enhanced leave encashment benefits and revised DCRG.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006
\n                                     -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      vi)    Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
\n      or order or direction to the second respondent to consider and
\n      pass appropriate orders on Ext.P-3 representation submitted by
\n      the petitioners.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.    A counter affidavit has been filed by the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent disputing the claim of the petitioners. They<\/p>\n
would submit that, Ext.P1 scheme offered a package to the<\/p>\n
petitioners and they are only entitled to that package and<\/p>\n
no other amounts even if the pay has been revised<\/p>\n
subsequent to their retirement retrospectively. They would<\/p>\n
rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in HEC Voluntary<\/p>\n
Retd. Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd<\/a><\/p>\n
(2006) 3 SCC 708 in support of their contention.<\/p>\n
      3.    I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      4.    As per Ext.P1, the benefits payable to the<\/p>\n
employees who opt for voluntary retirement under the<\/p>\n
scheme are contained in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the scheme<\/p>\n
which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “5.   Amount of ex-gratia.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (1)     An Officer seeking Special Voluntary Retirement
\n                    under this Scheme shall be entitled to lower of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006
\n                                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                    ex-gratia amount as given below, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Sixty days salary for each completed year of
\n                    service,
\n                                           Or<\/p>\n
                   Salary for the number of months of remaining
\n                    service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2)     The ex-gratia shall be computed on the basis of
\n                    his\/her salary as on the date of relieving. In case,
\n                    wage revision is effected from a date prior to the
\n                    date of this notification, the benefit of revised pay
\n                    for the purpose of payment of ex-gratia will be
\n                    allowed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.    Other Benefits.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (1)    An Officer opting for the Scheme shall also be
\n                    eligible for the following benefits in addition to the
\n                    ex-gratia amount mentioned in para 5, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a)     Provident Fund;\n\n            (b)     Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39\n                    of   1972)    or    gratuity,  payable    under    the\n<\/pre>\n
                    Rationalisation scheme, as the case may be;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c)     Pension (including commuted value of pension) as
\n                    per   General    Insurance    (Employees’)    Pension
\n                    Scheme, 1995, if eligible. However, the additional
\n                    notional benefit of five years of added service as
\n                    stipulated in para 30 of the said pension scheme
\n                    shall not be admissible for the purpose of
\n                    determining     the    quantum    of   pension    and
\n                    commutation of pension.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (d)     Leave encashment.\n\n            (2)     An Officer who opts for the scheme shall not be\n<\/pre>\n
                    entitled to avail Leave Travel Subsidy and also
\n                    encashment of leave during the period of sixty
\n                    days from the date of notification of this scheme.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                               (underlining supplied)<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006
\n                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      5.    The contention of the petitioners is that, the<\/p>\n
scheme does not exclude payment of benefits to the persons<\/p>\n
who have opted for voluntary retirement as per Ext.P1<\/p>\n
scheme on the basis of the revised pay, which is clear from<\/p>\n
paragraph 5 (2) of Ext.P1. The counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
would submit that, the only difference between a person<\/p>\n
who voluntarily retired under Ext.P1 scheme and a person<\/p>\n
who has retired normally under the regulations of the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent is payment of ex-gratia which is covered by<\/p>\n
Clause 5. As far as other benefits covered by Clause 6 are<\/p>\n
concerned that is applicable to other employees as well.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, such benefits should be paid to the petitioners as<\/p>\n
applicable to other employees of the company who retire<\/p>\n
normally is their contention.       According to them for<\/p>\n
calculating ex-gratia, taking into account the revised pay is<\/p>\n
permitted. Insofar as there is no specific exclusion of other<\/p>\n
benefits on the basis of the revised pay, the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n
cannot deny such benefits on the basis of the revised pay, is<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006
\n                              -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners.<\/p>\n
      6.    I am unable to countenance the contention of the<\/p>\n
petitioners. The effect of a scheme for voluntary retirement<\/p>\n
has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
various decisions, one of which is HEC Voluntary Retd.<\/p>\n
Employees Welfare Society’s case (supra) therein the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court has categorically held that, once an<\/p>\n
employee accepts the offer for voluntary retirement under a<\/p>\n
scheme and receives the benefit thereof which would be<\/p>\n
more than what an employee who does not opt for voluntary<\/p>\n
retirement gets, he has to accept the benefits of the<\/p>\n
Voluntary Retirement Scheme as a package and he would<\/p>\n
not be entitled to any payment other than what has been<\/p>\n
specifically conferred on him as per the scheme unless he<\/p>\n
has a right for other benefits conferred by a statute issued<\/p>\n
for the purpose. Here, the revision of pay is not a benefit<\/p>\n
conferred by a statute.       The petitioners had already<\/p>\n
received the package as per Ext.P1 scheme. As per that<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006
\n                              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
scheme,       in    case of subsequent    revision  of   pay<\/p>\n
retrospectively with effect from a date prior to the date of<\/p>\n
voluntary retirement, then the ex-gratia would be revised<\/p>\n
on the basis of the revised pay. Such a benefit is absent in<\/p>\n
Clause 6. I am of opinion that, when in respect of ex-gratia<\/p>\n
specifically the benefit is conferred on the employees who<\/p>\n
opt for voluntary retirement under the scheme, then the<\/p>\n
very same benefit is impliedly excluded in respect of other<\/p>\n
benefits.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court had in the HEC<\/p>\n
Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
given very elaborate reasons for taking such a view, which<\/p>\n
includes that under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme<\/p>\n
considerable amount is paid to the employee as ex-gratia<\/p>\n
besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary<\/p>\n
retirement. The payment of compensation is granted not<\/p>\n
for doing any work or rendition of service but in lieu of his<\/p>\n
leaving the services of the company. The Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court has also taken into account the fact that, the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006
\n                                -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
employees have an option either to opt for or not to opt for<\/p>\n
voluntary retirement under the scheme. Once an employee<\/p>\n
accepts the offer there is a concluded contract between the<\/p>\n
employer and the employee and thereafter there is a<\/p>\n
severance of employer – employee relationship between the<\/p>\n
employer       and     the employee   and    therefore unless<\/p>\n
specifically conferred by a policy decision of the employer<\/p>\n
or by statutory rule, subsequent revision of pay would not<\/p>\n
be applicable to those employees who have opted for<\/p>\n
voluntary retirement under the scheme. That judgment is<\/p>\n
squarely applicable to the petitioners’ case. The petitioners’<\/p>\n
challenge against Ext.P2 is on the ground that by Ext.P2,<\/p>\n
other benefits calculated on the revised pay has been<\/p>\n
excluded contrary to Ext.P1 scheme. I do not agree with<\/p>\n
that proposition.       I am of opinion that, Ext.P2 has been<\/p>\n
issued only in accordance with Ext.P1 scheme and there is<\/p>\n
no departure in Ext.P2 from Ext.P1 scheme. The petitioners<\/p>\n
have already been paid ex-gratia calculated on the basis of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.11014 of 2006
\n                             -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
the revised pay as contemplated in Clause 5 (2) of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
scheme. In view of the above position, the petitioners are<\/p>\n
not entitled to either payment of arrears of revised pay or<\/p>\n
other benefits as claimed by them or calculation of benefits<\/p>\n
under Ext.P1 scheme other than ex-gratia payment on the<\/p>\n
basis of the revised pay. Therefore there is no merit in the<\/p>\n
writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                             S. SIRI JAGAN
\n                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
shg\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 11014 of 2006(J) 1. T.K.VANCHI, AGED 61 YEARS, S\/O.LATE … Petitioner 2. J.CHACKO, AGED 58, S\/O.LATE 3. P.K.ALEXANDER VAIDYAN, 58 YEARS, 4. V.GOVINDAN, 56 YEARS, 5. ROSELINE RAJAN, 58 YEARS, 6. RAJASEKHARAN C.WARRIER, 7. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10378","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-17T02:19:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-17T02:19:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1624,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010\",\"name\":\"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-17T02:19:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-17T02:19:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-17T02:19:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010"},"wordCount":1624,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010","name":"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-17T02:19:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-vanchi-vs-union-of-india-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.K.Vanchi vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10378","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10378"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10378\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}