{"id":104474,"date":"2011-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-29T11:45:49","modified_gmt":"2016-05-29T06:15:49","slug":"vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, P. D. Kode<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                WRIT PETITION  No. 2954  & 2505 OF 2011.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                                     --------\n\n\n    WRIT PETITION No. 2954\/2011.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    Samadhan s\/o Rajaram Umak,\n    Aged about 58 years, Occupation \n                       \n    Laboratory Attendant, Punjabrao\n    Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, r\/o. Quarter\n    No. E\/16, Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi\n                      \n    Vidyapeeth Colony, Akola.                              ....PETITIONER.\n\n\n                                   VERSUS\n      \n   \n\n\n\n       1. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi\n          Vidyapeeth, Akola through\n          Assistant Registrar,\n          (Establishment).\n\n\n\n\n\n       2. Associate Dean,\n          Agriculture College Dr. Punjabrao\n          Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,\n          Akola.                                       ....RESPONDENTS\n                                                                      . \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     WITH\n\n\n    WRIT PETITION No. 2505\/2011.\n\n    Maroti s\/o Tukaram Dhote Umak,\n    Aged about 58 years, Occupation \n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::\n                                               2\n\n\n    Laboratory Attendant, Punjabrao\n    Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, r\/o. P.K.V.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n    Quarter No. D\/31, Krishi Nagar,\n    Akola.                                                       ....PETITIONER.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                                         VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n       1. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi\n          Vidyapeeth, Akola through\n          Assistant Registrar,\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n          (Establishment).\n\n         2.  Head of Department, Soil Science\n                           \n             and Agricultural Chemistry Dr. Punjabrao\n             Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,\n             Akola.                                             ....RESPONDENTS\n                                                                               . \n                          \n\n                                  -------------------------- \n      \n\n\n                        Mr.  A.M. Gordey, Senior Advocate with\n                      Mrs. R.D. Raskar, Advocate for PetitionerS.\n   \n\n\n\n                     Mr.  Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondents.\n                                   -------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                              CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI\n                                           & P.D. KODE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
    Date of reserving the Judgment. –   11.07.2011 (W.P.No.2954\/2011)
\n                                        20.11.2011 (W.P.No.2505\/2011)<\/p>\n
    Date of Pronouncement.          –   25.07.2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    JUDGEMENT.\n<\/p>\n
                 In Writ Petition No. 2954\/2011 filed under Article 226 of the <\/p>\n
    Constitution  of India, the petitioner Samadhan Umak – a Laboratory <\/p>\n
    Attendant   working   with   respondent   no.1   Agriculture   University   has <\/p>\n
    challenged the notice of retirement  dated 14.06.2011 served upon him <\/p>\n
    by the Secretary of respondent no.1, inter-alia mentioning that as he <\/p>\n
    completes 58 years of age on 30.06.2011, he would stand retired on <\/p>\n
    that date as per Rule 10[1] of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) <\/p>\n
    Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “1982 Rules” for short).  It is not <\/p>\n
    in dispute that his date of birth is 01.07.1953, however, according to <\/p>\n
    the petitioner, as he is Class-IV or Group-D employee, age of retirement <\/p>\n
    in his case is 60 years, as laid down in Rule 10.2 of the 1982 Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                 This petition was filed on 27.05.2011 and this Court issued <\/p>\n
    notice   in   the   matter   on   28.06.2011   and   made   it   returnable   on <\/p>\n
    30.06.2011.  The matter was then adjourned on one or two dates and <\/p>\n
    was heard on 06.07.2011, when we permitted respondent nos. 1 and 2 <\/p>\n
    time   till   11.07.2011   to   clarify   the   issue   in   relation   of   status   of <\/p>\n
    petitioner.   Accordingly on 11.07.2011, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have <\/p>\n
    filed additional affidavit stating that, in appointment order of petitioner <\/p>\n
    he was shown to be in Category -D or Group-D.  They further disclosed <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    that, they have not published any grouping or categorization depending <\/p>\n
    upon the pay-scales of their own, but were relying on the Government <\/p>\n
    Resolution dated 02.07.2002.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           Another Writ Petition No. 2505\/2011 also filed under Article <\/p>\n
    226   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   the   petitioner   Maroti   Dhote   –   a <\/p>\n
    Laboratory   Attendant   working   with   respondent   no.1   Agriculture <\/p>\n
    University has challenged the notice of retirement   dated 28.04.2011 <\/p>\n
    served   upon   him   by   the   Secretary   of   respondent   no.1,   inter-alia <\/p>\n
    mentioning  that as  he  completes  58 years  of  age  on  20.05.2011, he <\/p>\n
    would   stand   retired   on   31.05.2011     as   per   Rule   10[1]   of   the <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.  In this case also it is <\/p>\n
    not in dispute that date of birth of petitioner – Maroti is 21.05.1953, <\/p>\n
    however,   according   to   the   petitioner,   as   he   is   Class-IV   or   Group-D <\/p>\n
    employee, age of retirement in his case is 60 years, as laid down in Rule <\/p>\n
    10.2 of the 1982 Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                 This  Writ   Petition  No.2505\/2011  was   filed  on   30.05.2011 <\/p>\n
    and this Court issued notice in the matter on 31.05.2011 and made it <\/p>\n
    returnable on 21.06.2011.   The matter was then adjourned on one or <\/p>\n
    two dates and was heard and closed for orders on 20.07.2011.  As the <\/p>\n
    issue involved in both these petitions is identical, with the consent of <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    parties common judgment is being passed.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          We have heard both the petitions finally by consent of Shri <\/p>\n
    A.M. Gordey, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. R.D. Raskar,   learned <\/p>\n
    Counsel   for   Petitioners   and   Shri   Abhay  Sambre,   learned  Counsel   for <\/p>\n
    Respondents, by making Rule,  returnable forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          Shri   Gordey,   learned   Senior   Counsel   places   reliance   upon <\/p>\n
    the appointment orders as issued to petitioners to urge that as per its <\/p>\n
    Clause 9, petitioners were in Group-D.   It is further pointed out that <\/p>\n
    appointment of  petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2954\/2011 as laboratory <\/p>\n
    attendant   was   on   pay   scale   of   Rs.   3050-4590,   and   appointment   of <\/p>\n
    petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2505\/2011 also as laboratory attendant <\/p>\n
    was   in   the   pay   scale   of   Rs.   200-3-230-5-255-Extn5-280.     In   this <\/p>\n
    background,   Government   Resolutions   dated   29.07.1993,   08.06.1995 <\/p>\n
    and 02.07.2002 are relied upon to show that though there could have <\/p>\n
    been   and   there   was     pay   revision,   State   Government   had   taken <\/p>\n
    precaution to see that, that wage revision and fixation does not deprive <\/p>\n
    the Group-D employees like petitioners, of their retirement at 60.   He <\/p>\n
    contends that, though in the process of wage revision, employees like <\/p>\n
    petitioners may draw salary in pay scale shown in Class-III or Group-C, <\/p>\n
    then age of retirement remains 60.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    5.           Shri Sambre, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 <\/p>\n
    has relied upon the government resolution dated 02.07.2002 to urge <\/p>\n
    that as per categorization there, only those posts whose maximum in <\/p>\n
    pay scale is below Rs.4400\/- qualify to be treated as Group-D.   Thus <\/p>\n
    whose pay scale exceeds Rs.4400\/-, but is less then Rs.9000\/- fall in <\/p>\n
    Group-C.  As the minimum of pay scale applicable to petitioners is Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    4590\/-, it is in excess of Rs. 4400\/- and hence, the petitioners has been <\/p>\n
    rightly treated as Group-C employee.  He contends that Rule 10.1 of the <\/p>\n
    1982   Rules   prescribe   58   as   age   of   retirement   for   such   Group   -C <\/p>\n
    employee.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           After   hearing   the   respective   Counsel,   we   find   that   the <\/p>\n
    application of 1982 Rules to   petitioners is not in dispute.   The only <\/p>\n
    question is, whether case of petitioners need to be regulated by Rule <\/p>\n
    10.1 thereof or then by its  Rule 10.2. Rule  10.1 deals with group-C <\/p>\n
    employees and prescribes 58 as age of their superannuation.  Rule 10.2 <\/p>\n
    deals with group-D employee and prescribes 60 as age for that purpose.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           Perusal   of   appointment   order   dated   04.09.2005   issued   to <\/p>\n
    petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   No.   2954\/2011   by   respondent   reveals   his <\/p>\n
    designation as laboratory attendant and appointment in pay scale of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
    3050-75-3950-80-4590   on   probation   for   a   period   of   two   years.\n<\/p>\n
    Similarly appointment order dated 03.07.1980 issued to the petitioner <\/p>\n
    in Writ Petition No.2505\/2011 as laboratory attendant    shows pay sale <\/p>\n
    of   Rs.   200-3-230-5-255-Extn5-280.     The   terms   and   conditions   of <\/p>\n
    appointment   enclosed   in   Schedule,   particularly   Condition   No.9   show <\/p>\n
    that post of laboratory attendant is in Group-D and equivalent to post of <\/p>\n
    Attendant\/Watchman  etc.     This  appointment order or  its  terms and <\/p>\n
    conditions therein are not in dispute.  While removing  disparities,  at <\/p>\n
    the time of implementation of 3rd wage revision, the State Government <\/p>\n
    issued   a   resolution   on   29.07.1993.     Its   perusal   reveals   that   till   then <\/p>\n
    post having  minimum  of 1100 or  below it, were  treated as  Group-D <\/p>\n
    post.     This   was   hiked   from   1100   to   1400.   But,   then   its   clause   [5] <\/p>\n
    specifically stipulates that after wage revision, some group D posts may <\/p>\n
    get   pay   scales   which   are   covered   by   group-C,   and   this   may   create <\/p>\n
    confusion   about   their   superannuation   age   or   other   benefits.\n<\/p>\n
    Government therefore, has clarified that this change in wage revision <\/p>\n
    will not in any way prejudice such group-D employees and their service <\/p>\n
    conditions, and age of retirement will continue to remain the same.\n<\/p>\n
                 8th  June, 1995 is the another government resolution issued <\/p>\n
    on account of  assured promotion scheme.   Perusal  of its  clause 2[c] <\/p>\n
    again reveals the same protection to group-D employees.  At the time of <\/p>\n
    implementation   of   4th  wage   revision,   State   Government   has   issued <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
    resolution   dated   02.07.2002.     The   respondents   have   placed   reliance <\/p>\n
    upon this resolution.  This resolution shows post having maximum upto <\/p>\n
    Rs.4400\/- are included in Group-D.  Post above it and having maximum <\/p>\n
    upto Rs. 9000\/- are  treated   as  group-C post, but its  clause 5 again <\/p>\n
    shows similar protection to employees in Group-D.  Hence the employee <\/p>\n
    appointed in Group-D is entitled to same service conditions and age of <\/p>\n
    superannuation, even if on account of such wage revision, his pay is <\/p>\n
    fixed in scale maximum of which exceeds Rs.4400\/- and therefore, is <\/p>\n
    covered   by   group   -C   pay   scales.     Here   maximum   of   pay   scale   of <\/p>\n
    petitioners is Rs.4590\/- and hence that pay scale is of group-C.  In view <\/p>\n
    of   this   clarification   or   protection   extended   by   the   State   Government <\/p>\n
    vide   Clause   5   of   the   government   resolution   dated   02.07.2002,   it   is <\/p>\n
    apparent that their age of retirement cannot be changed and they are <\/p>\n
    entitled   be   treated   as   group-D   employee   for   all   service   conditions <\/p>\n
    including the age of retirement.  We, therefore, find justification being <\/p>\n
    pressed into service for retiring them at 58, unsustainable.   With the <\/p>\n
    result, it is apparent that their retirement as per notice having no. 856 <\/p>\n
    dated   14.06.2011   and   No.   340   dated   28.04.2011,   cannot   stand   and <\/p>\n
    petitioners are entitled to be continued till they reaches 60 yeas of age.\n<\/p>\n
    Accordingly   we   quash   and   set   aside   the   order   of   retirement   dated <\/p>\n
    14.06.2011 (Annexure-V with Writ Petition No.2954\/2011) and dated <\/p>\n
    28.04.2011 (Annexure-V with Writ Petition No.2505\/2011) and declare <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
    that   the   petitioners     are   entitled   to   be   taken   back   in   service   and <\/p>\n
    continue therein, till they attains the age of 60 years i.e. till 30.06.2013 <\/p>\n
    and 31.05.2013.  Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly directed to <\/p>\n
    take   them   back   forthwith,   to   pay   salary   from   01.07.2011   and <\/p>\n
    01.06.2011 till they are reinstated and to permit them to work till they <\/p>\n
    attains age of 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           Writ Petitions are thus allowed by making rule absolute in <\/p>\n
    the aforesaid terms.   However, in the circumstances of the case, there <\/p>\n
    shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                          JUDGE                               JUDGE\n\n\n    Rgd.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:33:16 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, P. D. Kode 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 2954 & 2505 OF 2011. ——– WRIT PETITION No. 2954\/2011. Samadhan s\/o Rajaram Umak, Aged about 58 years, Occupation […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011 - 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\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-29T06:15:49+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-29T06:15:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1385,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-29T06:15:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011 - 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\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-29T06:15:49+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-29T06:15:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011"},"wordCount":1385,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011","name":"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-29T06:15:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyapeeth-colony-vs-dr-punjabrao-deshmukh-krishi-on-25-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vidyapeeth Colony vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi on 25 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/104474","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=104474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}