{"id":110262,"date":"2000-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000"},"modified":"2016-02-17T15:57:30","modified_gmt":"2016-02-17T10:27:30","slug":"union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPRADIP KUMAR DEY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nDoraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Shivaraj V. Patil<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
\n    This  appeal  is filed assailing the judgment and  order
\ndated  23.12.1992,  passed by the High Court of Calcutta  in
\nCivil Appeal No.  659 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t respondent  herein filed a writ petition seeking  a
\nwrit  of mandamus directing the appellants to proceed on the
\nbasis  of  the recommendations presented to the\t Fourth\t Pay
\nCommission  by Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in  order
\nto  remove  disparity  in  the pay  scales  of\tNaik  (Radio
\nOperator)  and\tan  employee discharging similar  nature  of
\nduties\tin  Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless\t and
\nother  Central\tGovernment agencies on the ground  that\t the
\nduties\tperformed by the respondent as Naik (Radio Operator)
\nwere  more hazardous than the duties performed by  personnel
\nwith similar qualifications and experience in State services
\nand  other organizations.  The respondent made his claim  on
\nthe principle of equal pay for equal work.  The appellants
\ncontested  the\twrit petition by filing a  detailed  counter
\ncontending  that  the  recommendations\tof  the\t Fourth\t Pay
\nCommission  had been implemented by the CRPF in all respects
\nand  that the respondent was not discriminated;\t the  Fourth
\nPay Commission had gone deep into various aspects of the pay
\nstructure  of  various\tcategories of the employees  of\t the
\nCentral\t Government  and the claim of the respondent on\t the
\nprinciple  of  equal  pay for equal work was  not  tenable
\nhaving regard to various distinguishable factors.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned  single Judge by his order dated  28.9.1989
\ndismissed  the writ petition stating that the respondent was
\nappointed  as  a constable and was promoted as Naik  and  he
\ncould  not  equate himself with the pay scale  of  Assistant
\nSub-Inspector  of  Police;  the Pay Commission Report  shows
\nthat   all  Naiks  of\tall  Central  police  establishments
\nincluding  CRPF\t have  been given the same pay\tscale.\t The
\nrespondent  took up the matter in appeal before the Division
\nBench of the High Court in C.A.\t No.  659 of 1989.  The said
\nappeal\twas  allowed directing the appellants to fix up\t the
\npay of the respondent at Rs.1320-2040 and to revise the same
\nif  the\t same pay scale has since been revised in  order  to
\nremove the disparity.  Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned senior counsel for the appellants urged (1)
\nFourth Pay Commission recommendation had been implemented in
\nletter\tand  spirit  and  the  respondent  was\tnot  at\t all
\ndiscriminated;\t (2) the job of radio operator in CRPF could
\nnot  be\t compared  with the other civil radio  operators  of
\nother  departments;  the Fourth Pay Commission, having\tgone
\ndeep  into  the\t various  aspects of the  pay  structure  of
\nvarious\t  categories  of  the\temployees  of  the   Central
\nGovernment,  had made the recommendation;  (3) even to apply
\nthe  principle\tof  equal pay for equal work  details  and
\nparticulars  relating to comparable employees were not\tmade
\navailable so as to give direction as is done in the impugned
\njudgment;   (4) apart from the difference in pay scales\t the
\nRadio Operators in CRPF have various other facilities, which
\nare  not  available  to the other Radio Operators  in  civil
\ndepartments  and other Central Government agencies;  and (5)
\nthe respondent being in the rank of Naik in fact is claiming
\nthe benefits and pay scale available to the promotional post
\nof  Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police;\t the direction given
\nin  the impugned judgment leads to grant of pay scale of the
\nAssistant  Sub-Inspector of Police to the respondent, who is
\nin  the rank of Naik only;  there was no material from which
\ndefinite  conclusion  regarding\t  essential   qualification,
\nmethod\tof  recruitment\t and   other  relevant\tfactors\t for
\ncomparison  between the different organizations to apply the
\nprinciple of equal pay for equal work.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned  senior  counsel for  the  respondent\tmade
\nsubmissions supporting the impugned judgment.  He urged that
\nthe  appellants\t themselves having made recommendations\t for
\ngrant  of  pay\tscale,\twhich supported\t the  claim  of\t the
\nrespondent,  could  not go back;  the appellants  could\t not
\ntake  conflicting positions — one before the Pay Commission
\nand  the  other before the court.  According to the  learned
\ncounsel when all the facts are stated in the recommendations
\nsubmitted  to  the  Pay Commission as to the nature  of\t the
\nduties and other relevant factors, nothing more was required
\nto  be\tdone in order to grant pay scale as demanded by\t the
\nrespondent;   in  this view no fault can be found  with\t the
\njudgment under appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
\nlearned\t counsel for the parties.  The learned single  Judge@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nnoticed\t that (1) the respondent was originally appointed as
\na  Constable and had been promoted to the rank of Naik;\t  he
\nwas given the necessary training departmentally and had been
\nappointed as Naik (Radio Operator);  his substantive post is
\nthat  of Naik and his promotional post is that of  Assistant
\nSub-Inspector of Police;  the post of Naik is junior to that
\nof  Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police;\t as such  respondent
\ncould  not claim the pay scale of Assistant Sub-Inspector of
\nPolice,\t which\tis his promotional post.  (2) There  was  no
\nmaterial  before the court to come to a definite  conclusion
\nas  to\twhat are the essential qualifications and method  of
\nrecruitment  for the post of Radio Operator in Central Water
\nCommission   or\t Directorate  of   Police   Wireless;\t the
\nrespondent  being  Naik\t working  as a\tRadio  Operator,  is
\ngetting\t a  special  pay of Rs.80\/- per\t month;\t  there\t was
\nnothing\t on  record to show that the Radio Operator  of\t the
\nCentral\t Water\tCommission  and the  Directorate  of  Police
\nWireless  belong to the same rank of Naik of the CRPF.\t (3)
\nIt is clear from the Pay Commission Report that all Naiks of
\ncentral police establishments including CRPF have been given
\nthe  same  scale  of  pay;  therefore  for  the\t Naik  Radio
\nOperator  there\t cannot be different scale of pay.  In\tthis
\nview the writ petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal
\nfiled\tby  the\t respondent   stating  that  admittedly\t the
\nrespondent   was  performing  technical\t  duties   and\t was
\nperforming  more hazardous job;\t the Radio Operators in CRPF
\nwere not only performing similar nature of duties as that of
\nRadio\tOperators  of  Central\t Water\tCommission  or\t the
\nDirectorate of Police Wireless but they were also performing
\nmore  hazardous\t duties.   The appellants  appreciating\t the
\nnature\t of  work  made\t  recommendations  before  the\t Pay
\nCommission for higher pay scale but after the Pay Commission
\nturned\tdown  the  same,  they\thave  come  forward  with  a
\ndifferent  stand;   the appellants cannot  take\t conflicting
\nstands\t one before the Pay Commission and the other before
\nthe  court.   The  Pay Commission recommendations  were\t not
\nbinding\t on  the  Government.  They ought to  have  taken  a
\ndecision  on merits.  On this basis the Division Bench\tgave
\ndirections as already stated above.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tour considered view, the Division Bench of the\tHigh
\nCourt  was  not right and justified in straight away  giving
\ndirection  to  grant pay scale to the respondent when  there
\nwas  no\t material placed before the court for comparison  in
\norder  to apply the principle of equal pay for equal  work
\nbetween\t the Radio Operators of CRPF and the Radio Operators
\nworking\t in  civil  side  in Central  Water  Commission\t and
\nDirectorate  of Police Wireless.  In the absence of material
\nrelating   to\tother  comparable   employees  as   to\t the
\nqualifications,\t method\t of  recruitment, degree  of  skill,
\nexperience   involved  in  performance\t of  job,   training
\nrequired,  responsibilities undertaken and other  facilities
\nin  addition  to  pay scales, the learned single  Judge\t was
\nright  when  he stated in the order that in absence of\tsuch
\nmaterial  it  was  not\tpossible  to  grant  relief  to\t the
\nrespondent.    No  doubt,  the\t Directorate  of  CRPF\tmade
\nrecommendations\t to the Pay Commission for giving higher pay
\nscales on the basis of which claim is made by the respondent
\nfor grant of pay scale.\t The factual statements contained in
\nthe  recommendation of a particular department alone  cannot
\nbe  considered per se proof of such things or they cannot by
\nthemselves  vouch for the correctness of the same.  The said
\nrecommendation\tcould not be taken as a recommendation\tmade
\nby  the Government.  Even otherwise mere recommendation\t did
\nnot  confer any right on the respondent to make such a claim
\nfor writ of mandamus.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned counsel for the respondent strongly  relied
\non the judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh vs.  Union of
\nIndia  and  others  and<\/a> added that this\t decision  has\tbeen
\nfollowed  in  various  subsequent decisions of\tthis  Court.
\nAccording  to  him  when the appellants have  supported\t the
\nclaim  of  the respondent before the Pay  Commission  having
\nregard\tto  the nature of his duties, the Division Bench  of
\nthe  High Court was right in granting relief to him.   There
\nis  no\tdifficulty in accepting the principle stated in\t the
\nsaid  decision\tand which, in fact, has been  reiterated  in
\nsubsequent  decisions  of this Court.  But as stated in\t the
\nsaid decision the principle of equal pay for equal work is
\nnot an abstract doctrine but one of substance.\tIn para 8 of
\nthe said judgment it is stated thus:  –\n<\/p>\n
    Construing\tArticles  14  and 16 in the  light  of\tthe
\nPreamble  and  Article\t39(d), we are of the view  that\t the
\nprinciple equal pay for equal work is deducible from those
\nArticles  and  may be properly applied to cases\t of  unequal
\nscales\tof  pay\t based on no  classification  or  irrational
\nclassification\tthough those drawing the different scales of
\npay do identical work under the same employer.\n<\/p>\n
    (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    Few\t decisions were cited by the learned counsel for the
\nappellants in support of his submissions that the courts may
\nnot  interfere in the matter of fixation of pay scales\twhen
\nthe  Government\t fixes or grants pay scales on the basis  of
\nvarious factors including the Pay Commission recommendations
\nthat  too in the absence of relevant details and particulars
\nof  comparable\temployees.   This Court in S.L.\t  Ahmed\t and
\nothers\tvs.  Union of India and others<\/a> has held thus:  – It
\nis  not\t for this Court, we think, to examine how far  below
\nshould be the revised pay scale of the Radio Operators Grade
\nIII  (Naik).  If the Government has prescribed a  particular
\npay  scale in respect of them, all that the court can do  is
\nto merely pronounce on the validity of the fixation.  In the
\nevent that the court finds that the prescription is contrary
\nto  law it will strike it down and direct the Government  to
\ntake a fresh decision in the matter.  It is a very different
\ncase  from one where this Court has sought to prescribe\t pay
\nscales\tin  appeals directly preferred from an award of\t the
\nLabour\tCourt  dealing\twith such a matter.  In\t the  latter
\ncase,  this  Court  in\tits appellate  jurisdiction  can  be
\nregarded  as enjoying all the jurisdiction which the  Labour
\nCourt  enjoys.\t That  is  not\tso  in\tthe  present  case.
\n(emphasis supplied) Para 18 of the judgment of this Court in
\nState  of  U.P.\t and others vs.\t J.P.  Chaurasia and  others<\/a>@@
\n\t\t     JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nreads:\t 18.   The first question regarding entitlement\t to@@
\nJJJJJJ
\nthe  pay  scale\t admissible to Section Officers\t should\t not
\ndetain\tus longer.  The answer to the question depends\tupon
\nseveral\t factors.   It does not just depend upon either\t the
\nnature\tof work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries.
\nPrimarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and
\nresponsibilities  of  the  respective\tposts.\t More  often
\nfunctions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar,
\nbut  there may be difference in degrees in the\tperformance.
\nThe  quantity  of work may be the same, but quality  may  be
\ndifferent   that  cannot  be   determined  by  relying\tupon
\naverments in affidavits of interested parties.\tThe equation
\nof  posts  of equation of pay must be left to the  Executive
\nGovernment.  It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay
\nCommission.   They  would be the best judge to evaluate\t the
\nnature of duties and responsibilities of posts.\t If there is
\nany  such  determination by a Commission or  Committee,\t the
\ncourt  should normally accept it.  The court should not\t try
\nto  tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that  it
\nwas made with extraneous consideration. (emphasis supplied)
\nYet,  again  this  Court,  having referred  to\tits  earlier
\ndecisions  including  of Randhir Sungh and  J.P.   Chaurasia
\naforementioned,\t in  para  5  of its judgment  in  State  of
\nHaryana\t and others vs.\t Jasmer Singh and others<\/a> has  stated
\nthus:  – 5.  The principle of equal pay for equal work is
\nnot  always easy to apply.  There are inherent\tdifficulties
\nin  comparing and evaluating work done by different  persons
\nin   different\t organizations,\t  or   even  in\t  the\tsame
\norganization.\tThe principle was originally enunciated as a
\npart  of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article
\n39(d)  of the Constitution.  In the case of Randhir Singh v.
\nUnion  of  India,<\/a> however, this Court said that this  was  a
\nconstitutional\tgoal  capable  of   being  achieved  through
\nconstitutional\tremedies and held that the principle had  to
\nbe  read  into Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution.\t  In
\nthat case a Driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under
\nthe  Delhi  Administration  claimed equal  salary  as  other
\nDrivers and this prayer was granted.  The same principle was
\nsubsequently  followed for the purpose of granting relief in
\nDhirendra  Chamoli v.  State of U.P.<\/a>  [(1986) 1 SCC 637] and
\nJaipal v.  State of Haryana<\/a> [(1988) 3 SCC 354].\t In the case
\nof  Federation\tof  All\t India Customs\tand  Central  Excise
\nStenographers  (Recognised) v.\tUnion of India<\/a> [(1988) 3 SCC
\n91],  however, this Court explained the principle of  equal
\npay  for equal work by holding that differentiation in\tpay
\nscales\tamong  government  servants holding same  posts\t and
\nperforming  similar  work on the basis of difference in\t the
\ndegree\tof  responsibility, reliability and  confidentiality
\nwould  be  a valid differentiation.  In that case  different
\npay  scales fixed for Stenographers (Grade I) working in the
\nCentral\t Secretariat  and  those attached to  the  heads  of
\nsubordinate  offices on the basis of a recommendation of the
\nPay  Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and  as
\nnot  being contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal
\nwork.\t This  Court  also  said   that\t the  judgment\t of
\nadministrative\tauthorities concerning the  responsibilities
\nwhich  attach  to  the post, and the degree  of\t reliability
\nexpected  of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of\t the
\nauthorities  concerned\twhich,\tif  arrived  at\t bona  fide,
\nreasonably  and rationally, was not open to interference  by
\nthe  court.  (emphasis\tsupplied)  In Union  of\t India\tand
\nanother\t  vs.\tP.V.   Hariharan   and\tanother\t this  Court
\nobserved,  It  is  the\tfunction of  the  Government  which
\nnormally  acts\ton the recommendations of a Pay\t Commission.
\nChange\tof  pay scale of a category has a cascading  effect.
\nSeveral\t other\tcategories  similarly situated, as  well  as
\nthose  situated above and below, put forward their claims on
\nthe  basis of such change.  The Tribunal should realize that
\ninterfering  with  the\tprescribed pay scales is  a  serious
\nmatter.\t  The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at
\ngreat depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is
\nthe proper authority to decide upon this issue.\t Very often,
\nthe  doctrine  of equal pay for equal work is  also  being
\nmisunderstood  and misapplied, freely revising and enhancing
\nthe  pay scales across the board. In this background as\t to
\nthe  position of law touching the controversy raised in this
\nappeal,\t we have no hesitation in holding that the  impugned
\njudgment  and order are unsustainable.\tThe learned  counsel
\nfor  the  appellants  placed  before   us  a  chart  showing
\ndifference  in\tpay  scales, facilities,  other\t allowances,
\nleave period, providing accommodation, etc.  for the purpose
\nof comparison between the pay scales and other facilities of
\nthe  respondent\t and  similar  other  employees\t working  in
\nDirectorate  of\t Coordination  Police\tWireless  and  other
\nCentral\t Government  agencies.\tThe learned counsel for\t the
\nrespondent   reiterated\t that  the   nature  of\t duties\t and
\nresponsibilities of the respondent are not only similar when
\ncompared  to  other employees similarly placed, but  on\t the
\nother  hand they are more hazardous.  It is an\tindisputable
\nfact  that the pay-scales now claimed by the respondent\t are
\nthose  prescribed for the post of Assistant Sub-  Inspector.
\nAs  already  noticed above, it is once again  a\t promotional
\npost  for  a  Naik.   Acceding\tto the\tclaim  made  by\t the
\nrespondent  would  not\tmerely\tresult\t in  change  in\t the
\npay-scales but may also lead to alteration of the pattern of
\nhierarchy  requiring re-orientation and restructuring of the
\nother  posts above and below the post of respondent.   Added
\nto  this,  such\t consequences are likely to be felt  in\t the
\nvarious\t other\tCentral Police Establishments as well.\t All
\nthese which are likely to have a chain-reaction, may require
\nfurther\t consideration\tafresh by expert body like  the\t Pay
\nCommission  or the Government itself at an appropriate\ttime
\nin an appropriate manner.  Courts should normally leave such
\nmatters\t for the wisdom of administration except the  proven
\ncases  of hostile discrimination.  But in the case on  hand,
\nhaving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
\nthe  position of law stated above, the Division Bench of the
\nHigh  Court  was  not right in granting the  relief  itself,
\nstraightaway to the respondent;\t that too, without examining
\nthe  implications  and impact of giving such  directions  on
\nother  cadres.\tHowever, we make it clear that the rejection
\nof the claim of the respondent need not be taken as an issue
\nclosed\tonce  and  for\tall.   It  is  always  open  to\t the
\nGovernment  to consider the issue either by making reference
\nto  the Pay Commission or itself once again as to the  grant
\nof  pay-scales\tto  the\t respondent.   It  is  open  to\t the
\nrespondent to make further and detailed representation.\n<\/p>\n
    In the result, for the reasons stated above, this appeal
\nis  entitled  to succeed.  Accordingly, it is allowed.\t The
\njudgment  and  order  under  appeal are set  aside  and\t the
\njudgment of the learned Single Judge is restored.\n<\/p>\n
\t    No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000 Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: PRADIP KUMAR DEY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/11\/2000 BENCH: Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil. JUDGMENT: Shivaraj V. Patil L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J This appeal is filed assailing […]<\/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-110262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000 - 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-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-17T10:27:30+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=\"15 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-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T10:27:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2965,\"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-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T10:27:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000 - 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-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-17T10:27:30+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T10:27:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000"},"wordCount":2965,"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-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000","name":"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T10:27:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-pradip-kumar-dey-on-9-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Others vs Pradip Kumar Dey on 9 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/110262","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=110262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110262\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}