{"id":106865,"date":"1997-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997"},"modified":"2017-09-16T02:53:28","modified_gmt":"2017-09-15T21:23:28","slug":"e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997","title":{"rendered":"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M S Manohar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, G.B. Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nE.S.I. CORPORATION &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP.K. SRINIVASMURTHY &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/07\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nMrs. Sujata V. Manohar,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This  is\tan  appeal  filed  by  the  Employees  State<br \/>\nInsurance Corporation  against the judgment and order of the<br \/>\nCentral\t Administrative\t Tribunal,  Bangalore  Bench,  dated<br \/>\n3.10.1991 in Application No.350 of 1990. The application was<br \/>\nfiled by respondent no.1 for enhancement of this pay.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellants  have a  cadre of  Upper Division Clerks<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred\t to  as\t  `UDC&#8217;)  which\t  has  three<br \/>\ncategories &#8211;  UDC Cashier,  UDC Care-taker and UDC Incharge.<br \/>\nWhile UDC Cashier and UDC Care-taker were normally posted in<br \/>\nregional offices,  UDC Incharge was posted in local offices.<br \/>\nIt was a normal practice of the appellant-corporation to ask<br \/>\nthe Upper  Division Clerks  to exercise their option to work<br \/>\nin any\tof the\tthree categories.  At the  material time the<br \/>\npost of\t UDC Cashier  carried certain  allowance including a<br \/>\ncash allowance\tbased on  the total disbursement made by the<br \/>\nUDC Cashier  to the  insured persons  per month.  Hence\t the<br \/>\nseniors generally  opted for  UDC Cashier&#8217;s  post. The\tpay-<br \/>\nscales of all UDCs was Rs.330-560.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By memorandum  dated 22.3.1978 the scale of pay of UDCs<br \/>\nIncharge was revised on an ad hoc basis. It was also decided<br \/>\nto allow  this revised\tscale  of  pay\tto  those  who\twere<br \/>\nactually working as UDCs Incharge on 1.1.1973 and afterwards<br \/>\neither regularly  or for  broken periods irrespective of the<br \/>\nfact that  they were not the senior most to hold the post as<br \/>\na matter  of right  on temporary  ad hoc  basis. In 1986 the<br \/>\npost of UDC Incharge was abolished.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The next promotional post for UDCs was the post of Head<br \/>\nClerk. Some  employees of  the appellant-corporation who has<br \/>\noccupied the  post of  UDC Incharge  after 1.1.1973  and who<br \/>\nwere subsequently promoted as Head Clerks had challenged the<br \/>\nFixation of  their pay\tin the\tpost of\t Head  Clerks  under<br \/>\nFundamental Rule  22-C on the basis of the regular pay-scale<br \/>\ndrawn by  UDCs. They  has contained  that the ad hoc revised<br \/>\npay-scale of  UDC Incharge under the memorandum of 22.3.1978<br \/>\nshould be  the basis  for their pay fixation on promotion to<br \/>\nthe cost  of Head  Clerk under\tFundamental Rule  22-C. This<br \/>\ncontention was\tultimately upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High<br \/>\nCourt  in   Writ  Petition  Nos.4529-4531\/1983\t(hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to  as `Gopala\t Sharma&#8217;s case&#8217;).  A  special  leave<br \/>\npetition from this judgment was dismissed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Respondent No.2 had opted for the post of UDC Incharge.<br \/>\nAccordingly he\tworked as UDC Incharge till his promotion as<br \/>\na Head\tClerk on  12.1.1979. He\t claimed the  benefit of the<br \/>\ndecision  in  Gopala  Sharma&#8217;s\tcase  and  was\tgranted\t pay<br \/>\nfixation on promotion to the post of Head Clerk on the basis<br \/>\nof the\tlevised scale  of pay  of UDCs\tIncharge  under\t the<br \/>\nmemorandum of  22.3.1978.  Respondent  No.1  was  senior  to<br \/>\nrespondent No.2.  He had  however, opted for the post of UDC<br \/>\nCashier. Respondent  No.1 was  promoted\t as  Head  Clerk  on<br \/>\n1.4.1978 earlier  than respondent  No.2. The pay fixation of<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t1 as  Head Clerk  was done under Fundamental<br \/>\nRule 22-C  on the  basis of the last pay drawn by him as UDC<br \/>\nCashier. As  a\tresult,\t on  the  revised  pay\tfixation  of<br \/>\nrespondent No.2\t on  the  basis\t of  Gopala  Sharma&#8217;s  case,<br \/>\nalthough respondent  No.1 was  senior to  respondent No.2 in<br \/>\nthe cadre  of UDCs as well as Head Clerks, the pay fixed for<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t1 in  the post\tof Head Clerk was lower than<br \/>\nthe pay of respondent No.2 in the same cadre.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Respondent No.1 filed an application before the Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal,  Bangalore Bench for stepping up of<br \/>\nhis pay\t on the\t basis of  the pay  fixation of\t his junior-<br \/>\nrespondent No.2.  He made  other alternative prayers for his<br \/>\ndeemed promotion  as UDC Incharge and stepping up of his pay<br \/>\non that\t basis. The  Tribunal  by  its\timpugned  order\t has<br \/>\ndirected the  appellants to  step up  the pay  of the  first<br \/>\nrespondent with\t effect from  12.1.1979 on  a par  with\t the<br \/>\nsecond respondent  on the  refixation of  the salary  of the<br \/>\nsecond\trespondent.  The  Tribunal,  however,  confined\t the<br \/>\narrears of  pay and  allowances only  from one year prior to<br \/>\nthe date  of filing  of the  application namely,  11.5.1989.<br \/>\nBeing aggrieved\t by these  directions  the  appellants\thave<br \/>\nfiled the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Fundamental Rule  22-C at\tthe  material  time  was  as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Notwithstanding anything contained<br \/>\n     in these  rules, where a government<br \/>\n     servant  holding\ta  posts   in  a<br \/>\n     substantive,      temporary      or<br \/>\n     officiating capacity is promoted or<br \/>\n     appointed\t in    a    substantive,<br \/>\n     temporary or  officiating\tcapacity<br \/>\n     to another post carrying duties and<br \/>\n     responsibilities\t  of\t greater<br \/>\n     importance than  those attached  to<br \/>\n     the post  held by\thim, his initial<br \/>\n     pay in the time scale of the higher<br \/>\n     post shall\t be fixed  at the  stage<br \/>\n     next  above   the\tpay   nationally<br \/>\n     arrived at by increasing his pay in<br \/>\n     respect of\t the lower  post by  one<br \/>\n     increment at  the\tstage  at  which<br \/>\n     such pay has accrued&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The provision  on which  respondent No.1  relies is for<br \/>\nremoval of  anomalies by stepping up of pay of a senior who,<br \/>\non promotion,  draws less pay than his junior as a result of<br \/>\nthe application of Fundamental Rule 22-C. In order to remove<br \/>\nthe anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to<br \/>\na higher post on or after 1.4.1961 drawing lower pay in that<br \/>\npost than  another Government  servant junior  to him in the<br \/>\nlower  grade  and  promoted  or\t appointed  subsequently  to<br \/>\nanother identical  post, it  has been  decided that  in such<br \/>\ncases the  pay of  the senior  officer in  the\thigher\tpost<br \/>\nshould be  stepped up  to a figure equal to the pay as fixed<br \/>\nfor the junior officer in that higher post (G.I., M.F., O.M.<br \/>\nNo.F.2(78)-E. III(A)-66\t dated the  4th February, 1966). The<br \/>\nstepping up  should  be\t done  with  effect  from  the\tdate<br \/>\npromotion of  appointment  of  the  junior  officer  and  is<br \/>\nsubject to the following conditions:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;(a) Both\tthe  junior  and  senior<br \/>\n     officers should  belong to the same<br \/>\n     cadre and\tthe posts  in which they<br \/>\n     have  been\t promoted  or  appointed<br \/>\n     should be identical and in the same<br \/>\n     cadre;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (b) The  scales of pay of the lower<br \/>\n     and higher\t posts in which they are<br \/>\n     entitled  to  draw\t pay  should  be<br \/>\n     identical;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (c) The  anomaly should be directly<br \/>\n     as a  result of  the application of<br \/>\n     F.R. 22-C.\t For example,  if in the<br \/>\n     lower post the junior officer draws<br \/>\n     from time\tto time a higher rate of<br \/>\n     pay than  the senior  by virtue  of<br \/>\n     grant of  advance\tincrements,  the<br \/>\n     above  provisions\t will\tnot   be<br \/>\n     invoked to\t step up  the pay of the<br \/>\n     senior officer.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In the  present case,  respondent No.2 who is junior to<br \/>\nrespondent No.1\t became entitled to a higher pay fixation on<br \/>\npromotion as  a Head  Clerk than  respondent No.1 because of<br \/>\nthe higher  scale of pay to which the became entitled in the<br \/>\npost  of  UDC  Incharge\t by  reason  of\t the  memorandum  of<br \/>\n22.3.1978  as  interpreted  by\tthe  High  Court  in  Gopala<br \/>\nSharma&#8217;s case.\tRespondent No.1\t never held  the post of UDC<br \/>\nIncharge. He  had held\tthe post  of UDC  Cashier.  He\twas,<br \/>\ntherefore, not\tentitled to the benefit of the memorandum of<br \/>\n22.3.1978. As  a result,  the lower  post held by respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 carried  a different  scale of  pay than the lower post<br \/>\nheld by\t respondent No.2.  Since the  scales of\t pay in\t the<br \/>\nlower post  held by the two were not identical, the question<br \/>\nof stepping  up of  pay for  the  purpose  of  removing\t any<br \/>\nanomaly does not arise in the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the   case  of\t  <a href=\"\/doc\/1671793\/\">D.G.\tEmployees&#8217;  State  Insurance<br \/>\nCorporation and\t Anr. V.  B. Raghava  Shetty and  Ors.<\/a> (1995<br \/>\nSuppl.(2) SCC  681) which  deals with  a  similar  situation<br \/>\nwhere the seniors has declined to be posted as UDCs Incharge<br \/>\nand had\t preferred to remain in the regional office in order<br \/>\nto have\t the  benefit  of  house  rent\tallowance  and\tcity<br \/>\ncompensatory allowance,\t this Court  said  that\t Fundamental<br \/>\nRule 22-C  cannot be brought to help for stepping up the pay<br \/>\nof the\tseniors. In  the present case, since respondent No.1<br \/>\ndid not work as UDC Incharge at any point of time before his<br \/>\npromotion as  Head Clerk, and has opted for the post for UDC<br \/>\nCashier, he  is not  entitled to  have his pay stepped up on<br \/>\nthe basis  of the  pay fixed  under F.R.  22-C in respect of<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 on his promotion as Head Clerk on the basis<br \/>\nof the pay earlier drawn by him as UDC Incharge.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In this  view of  the matter  we need  not examine\t the<br \/>\nquestion of  limitation since even on merit, respondent No.1<br \/>\nis not entitled in a higher pay fixation on the basis of the<br \/>\npay drawn  by respondent  No.2 on  promotion to\t the post of<br \/>\nHead Clerk.  The  appeal  is,  therefore,  allowed  and\t the<br \/>\nimpugned order\tof the\tTribunal is  set aside.\t There will,<br \/>\nhowever, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997 Author: M S Manohar Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, G.B. Pattanaik PETITIONER: E.S.I. CORPORATION &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: P.K. SRINIVASMURTHY &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/07\/1997 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G [&hellip;]<\/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-106865","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-15T21:23:28+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\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-15T21:23:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1508,\"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\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997\",\"name\":\"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-15T21:23:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-15T21:23:28+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\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997","datePublished":"1997-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-15T21:23:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997"},"wordCount":1508,"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\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997","name":"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-15T21:23:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-s-i-corporation-anr-vs-p-k-srinivasmurthy-anr-on-23-july-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E.S.I. Corporation &amp; Anr vs P.K. Srinivasmurthy &amp; Anr on 23 July, 1997"}]},{"@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\/106865","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=106865"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106865\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106865"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106865"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}