{"id":106121,"date":"2009-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-23T15:09:28","modified_gmt":"2016-04-23T09:39:28","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: K Radhakrishnan<\/div>\n
Bench: J.M. Panchal, K.S. Radhakrishnan<\/div>\n
                                                                               REPORTABLE\n\n                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2005\n\n\nUnion of India & Ors.                                     ..... Appellants\n\n                                      Versus\n\nV.D. Dubey (dead) by Lrs.                                 ..... Respondent\n\n\n\n                                       WITH\n\n                   (Civil Appeal Nos. 1024\/2005 & 1025\/2005)\n\n\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.          The question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether<\/p>\n
the Rule 2423-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code as amended, which<\/p>\n
provides for adding certain period of service, to the qualifying service for<\/p>\n
superannuation pension, would be available to those who retire from service after<\/p>\n
31st March, 1960, irrespective of the fact whether the recruitment rules at the time<\/p>\n
of their appointment had contained such a specific provision or not.
\n                                                                                  2<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2.           The Railway Administration took up the stand that only if the<\/p>\n
recruitment rules conferred such a provision the benefit of added years of<\/p>\n
service, for superannuation pension, would be available. The High Court in all<\/p>\n
these cases took a consistent view that what is relevant is the date of retirement,<\/p>\n
not the date of entry in service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.           Rule 2423-A as it originally stood, stated that an officer appointed to<\/p>\n
his service or post on or after 1st April, 1960 was eligible to add to his service<\/p>\n
qualifying for superannuation pension, the actual period not exceeding 1\/4th of<\/p>\n
the length of his service or actual period by which his age at the time of<\/p>\n
recruitment exceeded 25 years or a period of five years whichever is less<\/p>\n
provided the post held by him is one for which post graduate research or<\/p>\n
specialized qualification or experience in scientific technological or professional<\/p>\n
field is essential   and to which candidate of more than 25 years of age are<\/p>\n
normally recruited. Rule was again amended on 15.11.1976 adding a proviso<\/p>\n
stating that the concession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in<\/p>\n
respect of a service\/post contain such a provision. Rule was again amended<\/p>\n
stating that the benefit of added years of service under Rule 2423-A\/R-II would<\/p>\n
be admissible to all those who retire from service or posts after 31.3.1960 and<\/p>\n
who were otherwise eligible under Rule 2423-A\/R-II which was made effective<\/p>\n
from 28th October, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
4.           In Civil Appeal No. 523 of 2005, the respondent joined service on<\/p>\n
4.8.1959 as Court Inspector in the Western Railway and he retired from service<\/p>\n
on superannuation as Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer from Central Railway on<\/p>\n
31.12.1989. The respondent claimed the benefit of added years of service, the<\/p>\n
same was, however, denied to him.           The reason for denial was that the<\/p>\n
recruitment rules did not contain such a provision. Further it was also stand of the<\/p>\n
Railway Administration that the recruitment rules of law inspector were amended<\/p>\n
only in the year 2000 and the provision in respect of addition of service was<\/p>\n
effected only then by the time the respondent had retired from service and hence<\/p>\n
he would not get benefit of Rule 2423-A\/R-II.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.           Aggrieved by the stand taken by the Railway Administration, the<\/p>\n
respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench filing<\/p>\n
O.A. No. 473\/2002.      The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the<\/p>\n
Railway Administration to fix the pension of the respondent adding to his service,<\/p>\n
the period by which the respondent at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years<\/p>\n
of service or a period of five years whichever is less for the purpose of calculating<\/p>\n
the pension. The Railway Administration took up the matter in appeal before the<\/p>\n
Bombay High Court. The High Court endorsed the view taken by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
and reiterated that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2301 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Establishment Code, the pensionable Railway servants claims to pension is<\/p>\n
regulated by Rules enforced at the time when he resigns or is discharged from<\/p>\n
service from the Government.       The Bench also noticed that Rule 2423 as it
\n                                                                                 4<\/span>
\noriginally stood was found incongruous and consequently it was amended on<\/p>\n
4.12.1987, whereby it was decided the benefit of added years of service under<\/p>\n
the Rule 2423-A\/R-II was made admissible to all those who retire from service or<\/p>\n
posts after 31st March, 1960 and who are otherwise eligible under Rule 2423-<\/p>\n
A\/R-II. It was, therefore, held that the Rule as stood after modification is that<\/p>\n
those who retire from service or posts after 31.3.1960 would get the benefit of<\/p>\n
adding to their service the period as may be admissible for calculation of<\/p>\n
pension.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.          In Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 2005, the respondent joined Railways as<\/p>\n
Assistant Surgeon on 23.10.1942 after having crossed the age of 25 years. While<\/p>\n
in service he took his master degree in general surgery. On 2.1.1959 he was<\/p>\n
appointed as D.M.O. Class-I Medical Officer through Union Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission and the respondent rejoined service in Central Railway. Respondent<\/p>\n
also claimed the benefit of the Rules which we have referred to in the earlier part<\/p>\n
of the judgment.    The same was denied, hence, he approached the Central<\/p>\n
Administrative Tribunal which has rejected his application. The respondent took<\/p>\n
up the matter in appeal with the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and<\/p>\n
the appeal was allowed holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of<\/p>\n
Rule 2423-A as amended and the Railway Administration was directed to give<\/p>\n
the benefit of added years of service, for reckoning the qualifying service for<\/p>\n
pension.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
7.          In Civil Appeal No. 1025 of 2005, the first respondent joined service<\/p>\n
in the Indian Railway Medical Service on 26.10.1958 and the second respondent<\/p>\n
in November, 1957. Both respondents while in service had acquired their post<\/p>\n
graduate qualifications.     The first respondent retired from service on<\/p>\n
superannuation    on   1.9.1979   and    the   second   respondent    retired   on<\/p>\n
superannuation on 11.9.1986. Since both the respondents retired from services<\/p>\n
after 31.3.1960 they claimed the benefit of Rule 2423-A by adding certain years<\/p>\n
of qualifying years of service for pension. Since the same was denied, they<\/p>\n
approached the Tribunal but the Tribunal dismissed their applications. They<\/p>\n
took up the matter before the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench of the<\/p>\n
Bombay High Court allowed their appeals by placing reliance on the judgment in<\/p>\n
writ petition No. 594 of 2003 (against which CA No.1024\/05 has been filed before<\/p>\n
this Court) and gave a direction to the Railway Administration to give benefit to<\/p>\n
the respondents as per Rule 2423-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Rules.<\/p>\n
8.          Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted the Rule 2423-A\/R-II<\/p>\n
as amended in the year 1976 provided that the benefit of added years of service<\/p>\n
can only be granted to whom if the recruitment Rules confers such a benefit<\/p>\n
when a person is appointed.        Learned senior counsel submitted that the<\/p>\n
respondents were appointed in service when the recruitment rules did not<\/p>\n
provide such a provision.   Learned counsel also submitted that for the first time<\/p>\n
the provisions were made in the year 2000 for granting benefit of added years of<\/p>\n
service vide letter dated 10.11.2000 and prior to that the Law Assistants were not
\n                                                                                  6<\/span>
\nentitled to such benefits. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent<\/p>\n
retired in the year 1989 by which time amended provision of Rule 2423-A of<\/p>\n
Indian Railway Establishment Code which came into existence on 15.11.1976<\/p>\n
was in force and at that time recruitment Rules for the Court Inspector\/Law<\/p>\n
Assistant did not contain the specific provision regarding the admissibility of<\/p>\n
addition to the qualifying service of pensionary benefits. Similar was a contention<\/p>\n
raised in respect of other two cases also.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.          Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents on the other<\/p>\n
hand placed heavy reliance on the Rule 2301 on the Railway Pension Rules and<\/p>\n
submitted that pensionable Railway Servants Claim is regulated by the Rules in<\/p>\n
force and at the time when a Railway servant resigns or is discharged from<\/p>\n
service. Learned senior counsel also fully endorsed the view expressed by the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court for interpretation of Rule 2423-A and<\/p>\n
submitted if the interpretation given by the learned Additional Solicitor General is<\/p>\n
accepted then the very object and purpose of the amendment of Rule 2423-A<\/p>\n
would be defeated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.         We have already referred to the relevant provisions in the earlier<\/p>\n
part of the judgment. Looking at the various amendments effected to Rule 2423-<\/p>\n
A, we are clearly of the view that the benefit of adding certain years of service<\/p>\n
under Rule 2423-A is intended to be given to all those officers who retire from<\/p>\n
service after 31st March, 1960 which is more clear when we look at Rule 2301 of
\n                                                                                7<\/span>
\nthe Railway Pension Rules which says a pensionable Railway servant’s claim to<\/p>\n
pension is regulated by Rules in force at the time when he resigns or discharged<\/p>\n
from the service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.          Persons who retire from service after 31.3.1960 form a class by<\/p>\n
themselves irrespective of their entry in service.     Further classification or<\/p>\n
differentiation among them was never intended by Rule 2423-A as amended<\/p>\n
from time to time read with Rule 2301 of the Railway Pension Rules. Rule 2423-<\/p>\n
A IREC as amended therefore, in our view, would apply to those categories of<\/p>\n
employees who have retired from service after 31.3.1960 for adding requisite<\/p>\n
number of years to their qualifying service, so as to claim the pensionary<\/p>\n
benefits. The scope of the proviso of Rule 2423-A of REM Vol. II came up for<\/p>\n
consideration before this Court in Secretary (Estt) Railway Board and Another v.<\/p>\n
D. Francis Paul and others<\/a>, (1996) 10 SCC 134 and this Court held that<\/p>\n
amendment cannot have retrospective effect in respect of person already in<\/p>\n
service but would be prospective; it would be applicable only to those candidates<\/p>\n
appointed after the date of the amendment introducing the proviso. Therefore<\/p>\n
the provision which states that the concession be admissible only if the<\/p>\n
recruitment rule provides so, would operate only prospectively. We fully endorse<\/p>\n
this view.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
12.         Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with the directions to the<\/p>\n
Appellants to calculate the pensionary benefits and disburse the same to the<\/p>\n
respondents at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ( J.M. Panchal)<\/p>\n
                                                 ………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ( K.S. Radhakrishnan)
\nNew Delhi
\nDecember 8, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009 Author: K Radhakrishnan Bench: J.M. Panchal, K.S. Radhakrishnan REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2005 Union of India & Ors. ….. Appellants Versus V.D. Dubey (dead) by […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-23T09:39:28+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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-23T09:39:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1620,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-23T09:39:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-23T09:39:28+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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-23T09:39:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009"},"wordCount":1620,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-23T09:39:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-v-d-dubey-d-by-lr-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/106121","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=106121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106121\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}