{"id":106529,"date":"2011-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-03T22:10:17","modified_gmt":"2016-10-03T16:40:17","slug":"unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: S S Nijjar<\/div>\n
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Surinder Singh Nijjar<\/div>\n
                                                     REPORTABL\n                                                  E\n\n         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7113 OF 2005\n\n\nUNNI MENON                                    ...Appellant\n\nVERSUS\n\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS                   ...Respondent(s)\n\n\n                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment<\/p>\n
  and order dated 12th April, 2004 passed by the High<\/p>\n
  Court of Karnataka at Bangalore rendered in Civil Writ<\/p>\n
  Petition No. 33496 of 2000(S-CAT) whereby the High<\/p>\n
  Court set aside and quashed the order passed by the<\/p>\n
  Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, (`CAT’ for<\/p>\n
  short) dated 1st March, 2000 and held that the<\/p>\n
  Accounts Department in the CAT does not fall within<\/p>\n
  the ambit of `Organized Accounts Cadres’.<\/p>\n
                                                    1<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2. We may notice here the essential facts necessary for<\/p>\n
  the adjudication of the present appeal. Unni Menon,<\/p>\n
  appellant   herein,    joined    the   Indian     Audit       and<\/p>\n
  Accounts    Department      as    Upper     Division      Clerk<\/p>\n
  w.e.f. 10th October, 1967. He thereafter cleared the<\/p>\n
  SAS examination and was promoted as Section Officer,<\/p>\n
  w.e.f. 24th October, 1973, in the office of Accountant<\/p>\n
  General, Bangalore, Karnataka. The appellant was<\/p>\n
  further promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer w.e.f.<\/p>\n
  1st April, 1987 by virtue of his seniority and merit.<\/p>\n
3. While he was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in<\/p>\n
  the office of the Accountant General, he went on<\/p>\n
  deputation to work in the CAT, Bangalore Bench<\/p>\n
  w.e.f. 21st August, 1989. As the appellant was on<\/p>\n
  deputation, his lien was maintained in his parent<\/p>\n
  department,    i.e.,   Accountant      General,   Karnataka<\/p>\n
  Circle, Bangalore. On the basis of his lien and<\/p>\n
  seniority, he was promoted as Accounts Officer in his<\/p>\n
  parent office, i.e., in office of the Accountant General,<\/p>\n
                                                            2<\/span>
\n  Bangalore,           w.e.f. 1st April 1992. Thereafter, he<\/p>\n
  was absorbed as Accounts Officer in the Central<\/p>\n
  Administrative Tribunal w.e.f. 23rd March, 1994.<\/p>\n
4. The   IV     Pay      Commission       made      certain<\/p>\n
  recommendations in the matter of pay scales between<\/p>\n
  the Accounts Officers in the Accounts Wing and the<\/p>\n
  Accounts Officers in the Audit Wing of the Indian<\/p>\n
  Audit and           Accounts Department. The relevant<\/p>\n
  extract of the recommendations is as under :-<\/p>\n
    “There has all along been parity between the
\n    staff in the IA & AD and Accounts staff and
\n    other Departments which has been disturbed
\n    by restructuring of IA & AD into two separate
\n    cadres viz, Audit Cadre and Accounts and
\n    Establishment Cadre and giving higher pay
\n    scales to a major portion of staffs on the audit
\n    side. The audit and accounts functions are
\n    complementary to each other and are generally
\n    performed in many government offices in an
\n    integrated manner which is necessary for their
\n    effective functioning. The Staff in these offices
\n    perform functions of internal check and audit
\n    suited to the requirements of each organization
\n    which are equally important. There is direct
\n    recruitment in the scale of Rs. 330-560 in all
\n    the audit and accounts cadres through Staff
\n    Selection Commission, Railway Recruitment
\n    Boards from amongst University graduates.
\n    Therefore, in view of this, there should be
\n                                                     3<\/span>
\n       board parity in the pay scales of the staff of IA
\n       & AD and other accounts organizations.
\n       Accordingly, it is recommended that the posts
\n       in the pay scale of Rs. 475-700 in the
\n       organized accounts cadres may be given the
\n       scale of Rs. 1400-2600.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5. Pursuant     to the recommendations of the IV Pay<\/p>\n
  Commission, Government of India issued a circular<\/p>\n
  vide No. F.6(82)\/IC\/91 dated 22nd September, 1992<\/p>\n
  giving promotional grade for Audit\/Accounts Officers<\/p>\n
  of `Organized Accounts Cadres’.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. It is the case of the appellant that he should have been<\/p>\n
  promoted to the cadre of Sr. Accounts Officer w.e.f. 1st<\/p>\n
  April, 1995 on his completion of three years’ of service<\/p>\n
  in    the   cadre   of   Accounts      Officer    in    the       scale<\/p>\n
  of Rs. 2375 – 3500 pursuant to the aforesaid circular<\/p>\n
  dated 22nd September, 1992. He further pointed out<\/p>\n
  that    the   persons    junior   to    him      in    his    parent<\/p>\n
  department had been promoted on completion of three<\/p>\n
  years’ service.     Since the nature of duties performed<\/p>\n
  and responsibilities shouldered by him in CAT are
\n                                                                4<\/span>
\n  identical   or    very     similar   to   the   duties        and<\/p>\n
  responsibilities in the parent cadre, he was entitled to<\/p>\n
  parity in designation and pay with his counterparts in<\/p>\n
  the Indian Audit & Accounts Department.<\/p>\n
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant made a representation<\/p>\n
  to the Chairman, CAT, New Delhi. The Chairman, CAT,<\/p>\n
  New Delhi wrote to the Department of Personnel and<\/p>\n
  Training, Bangalore.        The matter was taken up by<\/p>\n
  Department of Personnel and Training in a detailed<\/p>\n
  manner for conversion of 80% posts of Accounts<\/p>\n
  Officer\/ Junior Accounts Officer to the post of Senior<\/p>\n
  AIO,   AAO       and     Senior   Accountant    vide         letter<\/p>\n
  dated 16th September, 1997.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8. Thereafter, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi informed<\/p>\n
  the Registrar, CAT, Bangalore, that as the CAT did not<\/p>\n
  have `Organized Accounts Cadres’, therefore, the<\/p>\n
  benefit of O.M. dated 22nd September, 1992, could not<\/p>\n
  be extended to the appellant and, therefore, he is not<\/p>\n
                                                           5<\/span>
\n  entitled to get the promotion as mentioned under the<\/p>\n
  Memorandum        dated    22nd    September,      1992.<\/p>\n
  Subsequently, the CAT rejected appellant’s plea for<\/p>\n
  promotion to the cadre of Sr. Accounts Officer.<\/p>\n
9. The appellant then filed an application being        OA<\/p>\n
  No. 15 of 1999 before the CAT, Bangalore. The CAT<\/p>\n
  vide its final order dated 1st March, 2000 allowed his<\/p>\n
  application and held that CAT is also to be considered<\/p>\n
  as an `Organized Accounts Cadre’. The CAT actually<\/p>\n
  noticed that the appellant having been absorbed in<\/p>\n
  CAT, Bangalore, w.e.f. 23rd March, 1994, about one<\/p>\n
  year prior to his completion of three years, had lost his<\/p>\n
  lien in the parent department.       It had been duly<\/p>\n
  terminated        on 26th March, 1994.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. Having noticed as above, the CAT also noticed that<\/p>\n
  Central Administrative Tribunal (Accounts Personnel<\/p>\n
  Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
  as `Recruitment Rules, 1990′), were applicable to the<\/p>\n
                                                    6<\/span>
\nofficials of CAT. But on interpretation of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
rules, it observed that the recruitment rules would<\/p>\n
indicate that there is an `Organized Accounts Cadre’,<\/p>\n
even though there is no `Organized Accounts Service’<\/p>\n
in CAT. Therefore, the respondents, according to CAT,<\/p>\n
were   making    an    artificial   distinction    between<\/p>\n
`Organized Accounts Cadres’ and `Organized Accounts<\/p>\n
Services’, which very much existed in CAT.               The<\/p>\n
conclusion   was justified    on    the   basis   that   the<\/p>\n
recruitment rules clearly provided a hierarchy of posts<\/p>\n
available in the accounts cadre. The highest post<\/p>\n
available is `Deputy Controller of Accounts, next one<\/p>\n
Accounts Officer, the third one Junior Accounts<\/p>\n
Officer, the fourth one Senior Accountant and then the<\/p>\n
Junior Accountant’. It, therefore, held that CAT has<\/p>\n
an `Organized Accounts Cadre’ and the Memorandum<\/p>\n
dated 22nd September, 1992 would be applicable.           It<\/p>\n
was further observed by CAT that the O.M. dated 22nd<\/p>\n
September, 1992, has a general application to all<\/p>\n
Organized Accounts Cadres. Its application cannot be<\/p>\n
                                                     7<\/span>
\n  restricted only to some specified cadres. The action of<\/p>\n
  the   respondents   was    held   to   be   arbitrary   and<\/p>\n
  discriminatory.   This    would   be   evident   from   the<\/p>\n
  following observations in the order of CAT:-<\/p>\n
    “Annexure A – 4 which is by Govt. of India,
\n    Ministry of Commerce dated 10.09.1995, this
\n    order deals with similar cases where two
\n    officers of Commerce Department by names,
\n    Smt. Dhakshayani Ramalingam and Shri. V.
\n    K. Gopalakrishnan who were Account Officers
\n    in the zones of Madras and Cochin were sent
\n    on deputation where they were observed in the
\n    regular service of those zones and those posts
\n    of account officers are also isolated posts. In
\n    such cases, the Government of India has
\n    created promotional posts as prayed by this
\n    applicant in this case and in pursuance of this
\n    O. M. at Annexure A1 those officers were
\n    directed to be appointed after following due
\n    process by following principles of fitness. This
\n    letter would clearly show that at that time the
\n    Government has not taken the objection that
\n    because those officers are from isolated posts
\n    and did not belong to the organized accounts
\n    cadres, they were not entitled. On the other
\n    hand, this benefit was given to those officers.
\n    In view of enclosure to Annexure A4 when the
\n    applicant is also similarly placed, we have to
\n    hold that he is also entitled for similar
\n    consideration by the Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\nWith the aforesaid observations CAT held that the<\/p>\n
Accounts Department is also to be considered as an<\/p>\n
                                                      8<\/span>
\n`Organized Accounts Cadre’.         The respondents were<\/p>\n
directed   to   reconsider   the   representations   of   the<\/p>\n
appellant and to pass suitable orders in the light of the<\/p>\n
observations made in the order within a period of three<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.<\/p>\n
11.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CAT, the<\/p>\n
  respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court<\/p>\n
  of Karnataka. The Division Bench of the High Court<\/p>\n
  has allowed the writ petition and set aside the<\/p>\n
  impugned order of CAT. The application filed by the<\/p>\n
  appellant before the CAT has been dismissed.<\/p>\n
12.Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the<\/p>\n
  appellant is before us in the present appeal. The short<\/p>\n
  question which arises in these proceedings was<\/p>\n
  formulated by the High Court as follows:-<\/p>\n
     “Whether the respondent is entitled to be
\n     considered for promotion as Sr. Accounts
\n     Officer in CAT with effect from 1-4-1995 base
\n     on the Official Memorandum dated 23.3.1992
\n     bearing No.2402-GE.II\/116-92?”\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                      9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
13.Answering the aforesaid question, the High Court<\/p>\n
       held:-\n<\/p>\n
i)       The Central Administrative Tribunal is a separate<\/p>\n
         entity created under statute, is not a department of<\/p>\n
         the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
ii)      The Official Memorandum in question is issued for<\/p>\n
         the purpose of re-designating the promotional grade<\/p>\n
         of Audit\/Accounts Officers in `Organized Accounts<\/p>\n
         Cadres’ as Sr. Audit Officer, Sr. Accounts Officer.<\/p>\n
         Consequent upon the creation of promotional grade<\/p>\n
         for 80 per cent of the Audit\/Accounts Officer in a<\/p>\n
         different scale.\n<\/p>\n
iii)     The Memorandum specifically states that it is<\/p>\n
         applicable    to   Indian   Audits   and   Accounts<\/p>\n
         Department and other `Organized Accounts Cadres’,<\/p>\n
         except Railway Accounts Cadres.\n<\/p>\n
iv)      Therefore, at best, it could apply to all Central<\/p>\n
         Government departments and every establishment<\/p>\n
         under the Central Services, where there is an<\/p>\n
         organized cadre.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                      10<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
v)      There is no possibility of re-designation of posts in<\/p>\n
        CAT as there is no post of Sr. Accounts Officer in<\/p>\n
        the hierarchy of the accounts cadre of the CAT.<\/p>\n
vi)     The cadre hierarchy in CAT is regulated by the<\/p>\n
        Recruitment Rules, 1990.        The Division Bench<\/p>\n
        noticed the provision contained in Rule 3 which<\/p>\n
        governs the number of posts, classification and<\/p>\n
        their scales of pay which read as under:-<\/p>\n
              “The number of the said posts, their
\n              classification and the scale of pay
\n              attached thereto shall be as specified in
\n              column 2 to 4 of the said schedule”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14. We are entirely in agreement with the observations<\/p>\n
      made by the High Court. We may, however, add that<\/p>\n
      the respondent having lost his lien in the parent<\/p>\n
      department w.e.f. 26th March, 1994, can not claim the<\/p>\n
      benefit of the O.M. dated 22nd September, 1992, as by<\/p>\n
      the relevant time, he was borne on the cadre of<\/p>\n
      Accounts Department of CAT.      The promotions, if any<\/p>\n
      of junior in the parent department would be of no<\/p>\n
      relevance for consideration of the case of the appellant.<\/p>\n
                                                       11<\/span>
\n  The service conditions of the officers of CAT are<\/p>\n
  admittedly governed by the Recruitment Rules, 1990.<\/p>\n
  Schedule 2 of the aforesaid Rules does not include any<\/p>\n
  cadre called the `Sr. Accounts Officer’, to which the<\/p>\n
  appellant wanted promotion.      In fact, the cadre of<\/p>\n
  accounts personnel in CAT consists of five categories<\/p>\n
  of posts, namely, `Deputy Controller of Accounts,<\/p>\n
  Accounts Officer, Junior Accounts Officer, Senior<\/p>\n
  Accountant and Junior Accountant’.      The appellant<\/p>\n
  was designated as the Accounts Officer at the relevant<\/p>\n
  time. Therefore, his promotion could only have been<\/p>\n
  to the next post of Deputy Controller of Accounts. In<\/p>\n
  view of the above, the O.M. dated 22nd September,<\/p>\n
  1992 clearly would have no application in the case of<\/p>\n
  the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted<\/p>\n
  before us that the definition of the term `Organized<\/p>\n
  Accounts Cadre’ would include the accounts service in<\/p>\n
  CAT. The appellant cannot be denied the benefit<\/p>\n
                                                  12<\/span>
\n  merely because he is occupying an isolated post.<\/p>\n
  Learned counsel further pointed out that in a number<\/p>\n
  of cases, even in the case of isolated posts, the<\/p>\n
  respondents have granted the benefit of O.M. dated<\/p>\n
  22nd September, 1992 to the officers working on such<\/p>\n
  posts.      Since the same benefit had been illegally<\/p>\n
  denied to the appellant, the CAT had correctly applied<\/p>\n
  the principle of `equal pay for equal work’ and non-<\/p>\n
  discrimination amongst similarly situated employees of<\/p>\n
  Union of India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. We are wholly unimpressed by both limbs of the<\/p>\n
  submissions.       It cannot be disputed that CAT is an<\/p>\n
  independent entity created under the Administrative<\/p>\n
  Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 13 sub-section 2 of the<\/p>\n
  aforesaid Act provides that the salaries and allowances<\/p>\n
  and conditions of the service of the officers and other<\/p>\n
  employees of a Tribunal shall be such, as may be<\/p>\n
  specified     by    rules   made    by     the   appropriate<\/p>\n
  governments.         Undoubtedly,    the    Accounts      and<\/p>\n
                                                       13<\/span>
\n                  Personnel Department is governed by the Recruitment<\/p>\n
                  Rules,   1990   framed    under    the   Administrative<\/p>\n
                  Tribunals Act, 1985, which are independent and self-<\/p>\n
                  contained.   They could not be intermingled with the<\/p>\n
                  Rules of Central Government Departments. Therefore,<\/p>\n
                  the examples given by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
                  appellant relating to an isolated post in the BSF on the<\/p>\n
                  basis of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the<\/p>\n
                  case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. J.R. Chobedar,<\/p>\n
                  W.P. (C) No. 20065-67 of 2004 decided           on 25 th<\/p>\n
                  January, 2005 would be of no assistance to the<\/p>\n
                  appellant. Similarly, the judgment of this Court in the<\/p>\n
                  case of State of Mizoram & Anr. Vs. Mizoram<\/p>\n
                  Engineering Service Association & Anr.1 would have<\/p>\n
                  no application as it related to discrimination with<\/p>\n
                  regard to pay revision in the Engineering Department<\/p>\n
                  of Mizoram. It was in the context of the submission<\/p>\n
                  that the Engineering service in the State was not an<\/p>\n
                  organized service, this Court observed that there can<\/p>\n
                  be hardly any difference in organized and unorganized
\n1<\/span>
\n    [(2004) 6 SCC 218]
\n                                                                  14<\/span>
\nservice so far as Government service is concerned. We<\/p>\n
may note here the observations made by this Court in<\/p>\n
Paragraph 6 of the judgment, which is as under:-<\/p>\n
  “6. Great stress was laid on the fact that
\n  Engineering Service in the State was not an
\n  organised service and therefore, it did not have
\n  categorisation by way of entrance-level and
\n  senior-level posts and for that reason the
\n  higher scale of Rs    5900-6700 which was
\n  admissible for senior-level posts could not be
\n  given in the Engineering Service. The main
\n  reason for dubbing Engineering Service as an
\n  unorganised service in the State is absence of
\n  recruitment rules for the service. Who is
\n  responsible for not framing the recruitment
\n  rules? Are the members of the Engineering
\n  Service responsible for it? The answer is
\n  clearly “No”. For failure of the State
\n  Government to frame recruitment rules and
\n  bring    Engineering     Service   within    the
\n  framework of organised service, the engineers
\n  cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the
\n  reason of absence of recruitment rules for the
\n  Engineering Service, we see hardly any
\n  difference in organised and unorganised
\n  service so far as government service is
\n  concerned. In government service such a
\n  distinction does not appear to have any
\n  relevance. Civil service is not trade unionism.
\n  We fail to appreciate what is sought to be
\n  conveyed by use of the words “organised
\n  service” and “unorganised service”. Nothing
\n  has been pointed out in this behalf. The
\n  argument is wholly misconceived.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                15<\/span>
\nThese observations clearly show that the Engineering<\/p>\n
Service had been dubbed as unorganized service as the<\/p>\n
State had failed to frame the necessary recruitment rules.<\/p>\n
This    Court,   therefore,   observed      that      the        State<\/p>\n
Government can not take advantage of its own failure to<\/p>\n
frame the recruitment rules and bring the Engineering<\/p>\n
Service within the framework of organized service.                For<\/p>\n
such failure, the Engineers could not be made to suffer.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid observations have no application to the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of this case.<\/p>\n
17.    We, therefore, find no merit in the submissions<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of<\/p>\n
the above, the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 ……………………………..J.
\n                                [B.Sudershan Reddy]<\/p>\n
                                                            16<\/span>
\n                    ……………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                    [Surinder Singh Nijjar]<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
January 07, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                               17<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011 Author: S S Nijjar Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Surinder Singh Nijjar REPORTABL E IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7113 OF 2005 UNNI MENON …Appellant VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS …Respondent(s) JUDGMENT […]<\/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-106529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 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\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-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=\"2011-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-03T16:40:17+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-03T16:40:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2626,\"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\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-03T16:40:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 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":"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 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\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-03T16:40:17+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-03T16:40:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011"},"wordCount":2626,"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\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011","name":"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-03T16:40:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unni-menon-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unni Menon vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 January, 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\/106529","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=106529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}