{"id":110860,"date":"2004-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004"},"modified":"2016-04-05T23:53:47","modified_gmt":"2016-04-05T18:23:47","slug":"state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Kapadia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7839-7840 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of U.P. &amp; Others\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGulab Shankar Srivastava\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/12\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.12108-12109 of 2003]<\/p>\n<p>KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThese appeals are directed against two sets of orders<br \/>\npassed by the High Court of Allahabad, both, dated 30.01.2003<br \/>\ndismissing CMWP No.9951 of 2002 filed by State of U.P. and<br \/>\nsimultaneously allowing CMWP No.41586 of 1999 filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent herein, directing payment of all consequential<br \/>\nbenefits, as if the order of punishment dated 19.4.1993 had not<br \/>\nbeen passed, with interest @ 10% per annum.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are<br \/>\nnecessary to be recapitulated.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tGulab Shankar Srivastava, the respondent herein, was<br \/>\nposted on 30.12.1987 as Assistant Deputy Director in the<br \/>\nFinance Department, Directorate of Education, U.P. As<br \/>\nAssistant Deputy Director, he was required to deal with the<br \/>\nmatters concerning financial sanction of salaries payable to the<br \/>\nstaff under three language formula and reimbursement of fees<br \/>\nof girls and scheduled castes and scheduled tribes from the<br \/>\nallocations made by the State.  On 26.4.1988, he was<br \/>\nsuspended.  On 2.1.1989, he was charge-sheeted.  In all, 48<br \/>\ncharges were framed and they inter alia related to irregularities<br \/>\nin the matter of preparation of budget and sanctioning grants<br \/>\nwithout obtaining prior approval from his superiors. On<br \/>\n7.5.1990, he replied and denied the said charges.  On 3.4.1991,<br \/>\nthe Enquiry Officer submitted his report, in which charge nos.7<br \/>\nand 20 were found to be fully proved whereas charge nos.2, 4,<br \/>\n5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22, 28, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46<br \/>\nand 47 were found to be partly proved.  By his report, the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer proposed stoppage of three annual increments<br \/>\nwith permanent effect.  By letter dated 12.10.1992, the<br \/>\ndelinquent was asked by the Appointing Authority to submit his<br \/>\nreply to the enquiry report.  By order dated 19.4.1993, the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority, after considering the material on record<br \/>\nimposed the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage of his<br \/>\npay scale of Rs.2200-75-2600-E.B.-100-4000.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTo complete the chronology of events, the respondent<br \/>\nherein, challenged the order dated 19.4.1993 by filing Claim<br \/>\nPetition No.1393 of 1993 before the State Public Services<br \/>\nTribunal, Lucknow, in which he alleged lack of opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing, non-supply of vital documents, denial of opportunity to<br \/>\ncross-examine the witnesses and breach of Civil Services<br \/>\n(Classification, Control &amp; Appeal) Rules.  He further submitted<br \/>\nthat the impugned punishment amounted to a major punishment<br \/>\nwhich warranted full-fledged enquiry, whereas what was held<br \/>\nwas a summary enquiry and consequently, the said order dated<br \/>\n19.4.1993 was arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>  \tThe said claim petition was contested by the appellants<br \/>\nherein stating, that, the delinquent had committed serious<br \/>\nfinancial irregularities in performance of his duties; that the<br \/>\ncopies of all relevant documents in support of the charges were<br \/>\nsupplied; that inspection of the documents was also given; and<br \/>\nthat the said order dated 19.4.1993 was passed after giving full<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing to the respondent herein.  That, looking<br \/>\nto the gravity of charges, appropriate punishment of reduction<br \/>\nto the lowest stage in the time scale was awarded both<br \/>\njustifiably and in accordance with the provisions of Civil<br \/>\nServices (Conduct &amp; Disciplinary) Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy judgment and order dated 28.2.1998, the Tribunal,<br \/>\nheld, that, the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage of the<br \/>\npay scale was a major punishment; that the charge-sheeted<br \/>\nemployee was not supplied with the necessary documents<br \/>\ndespite repeated demands; that out of 48 charges, no details of<br \/>\nthe documents in support of 39 charges were ever given; that<br \/>\nmere permission to inspect the documents was not sufficient<br \/>\ncompliance of law, particularly when 48 charges were levelled;<br \/>\nthat the respondent herein was prevented from cross-examining<br \/>\nthe witnesses; that he was not allowed to produce defence<br \/>\nevidence; that no reasons have been given by the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority for not accepting the punishment proposed by the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer and consequently, the Tribunal quashed the<br \/>\nsaid order dated 19.4.1993, with liberty to the appellants to hold<br \/>\nthe departmental enquiry, afresh, if so advised, keeping in mind<br \/>\nthe factum of respondent&#8217;s retirement in 1994.  By the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment, the Tribunal gave liberty to the appellants<br \/>\nto hold the departmental enquiry by observing that charges<br \/>\nlevelled against the respondent were of serious nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSince there is the controversy regarding text of the<br \/>\noperative part of the judgment of the Tribunal, we quote herein<br \/>\nbelow the said part, in extenso:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;ORDER:\n<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner&#8217;s petition is allowed in the manner<br \/>\nthat the punishment order dated 19.4.1993,<br \/>\ncontained in Annexure No.15 and the appellate<br \/>\norder dated 27.4.1994 annexed with the<br \/>\namendment application are quashed as illegal and<br \/>\nit is directed that the petitioner should be allowed<br \/>\nthe consequential service benefits in accordance<br \/>\nwith law.  Petitioner&#8217;s prayer for the payment of<br \/>\nsalary etc. for the suspension period is not allowed<br \/>\nsince the matter relating to it is a subjudiced before<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble High Court.  It is further directed that<br \/>\nthe opposite parties shall be at liberty to hold<br \/>\ndepartmental enquiry against the petitioner afresh<br \/>\nas observed above.  The departmental enquiry<br \/>\nshould be initiated within four months from the<br \/>\ndate of communication of the order and it should<br \/>\nthen be completed within another four months and<br \/>\nthe service benefits given to the petitioner shall be<br \/>\nsubject to the final result of the enquiry.  In case<br \/>\nno enquiry is held within the stipulated period, the<br \/>\npetitioner shall be entitled to get the consequential<br \/>\nservice benefits accordingly as per rules.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs stated above, being aggrieved by the decision of the<br \/>\nTribunal dated 28.2.1998, the appellants herein, moved the<br \/>\nHigh Court vide CMWP No.9951 of 2002 whereas the<br \/>\nrespondent herein moved the High Court by way of CMWP<br \/>\nNo.41586 of 1999 claiming arrears of salary (including<br \/>\ndifference of pay for suspension period) and allowances as the<br \/>\nenquiry was not completed within the stipulated period as<br \/>\nordered by the Tribunal vide its decision dated 28.2.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy the impugned judgments dated 30.01.2003, the writ<br \/>\npetition filed by the appellants being CMWP No.9951 of 2002<br \/>\nstood dismissed whereas CMWP No.41586 of 1999 filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent herein was allowed with a direction to pay the<br \/>\narrears of salary, allowances and all consequential benefits with<br \/>\ninterest @ 10% per annum.  Accordingly, the appellants applied<br \/>\nto this Court under Article 136 and have obtained special leave<br \/>\nto appeal against the impugned judgments.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe contention urged before us by the appellants is that<br \/>\nthe High Court had erred in directing the appellants to pay the<br \/>\ndifference in salary for the period of suspension with all<br \/>\nbenefits with 10% interest without deciding upon the rights of<br \/>\nthe appellants to continue the departmental proceedings<br \/>\ninstituted prior to the respondent&#8217;s retirement under regulation<br \/>\n351-A of U.P. Civil Service Regulations (relating to pension).<br \/>\nIt was urged on behalf of the appellants that they had right to<br \/>\ncontinue the departmental proceedings for which leave was<br \/>\ngranted by the Tribunal, without Governor&#8217;s sanction to enable<br \/>\nthem to deduct or withhold the pension in entirety or in part<br \/>\nunder the said regulation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPer contra, it was urged on behalf of the respondent<br \/>\nherein that no such right vested in the appellants after 1994<br \/>\n(when the respondent retired) and particularly when the<br \/>\ndepartmental proceedings were not completed within the<br \/>\nstipulated period.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the case of State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma &amp;<br \/>\nAnother reported in [(1987) 2 SCC 179], this Court held that<br \/>\nunder regulation 351-A of U.P. Civil Service Regulations, the<br \/>\nGovernment was authorized to withhold or reduce pension and<br \/>\nmerely because a Government servant retired from service on<br \/>\nattaining the age of superannuation, he cannot escape the<br \/>\nliability for misconduct and negligence or financial<br \/>\nirregularities, which he may have committed during the period<br \/>\nof his service.  This decision has been followed by this Court in<br \/>\nthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1886142\/\">Takhatray Shivadattray Mankad v. State of<br \/>\nGujarat<\/a> reported in [1989 Supp. (2) SCC 110, paras 24 &amp; 25].\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThere is merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellants.  As stated above, the respondent herein, had moved<br \/>\nthe High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for<br \/>\ndifference in the pay during the period of suspension and for<br \/>\nconsequential benefits. Before the High Court, the appellants<br \/>\nsubmitted that they had the right to deduct or withhold the<br \/>\npension either in part or in toto on account of the alleged<br \/>\nfinancial irregularities.  In our view, the questions indicated<br \/>\nabove ought to have been decided by the High Court<br \/>\nparticularly before ordering payment with interest @ 10% per<br \/>\nannum.  Moreover, applicability of regulation 351-A requires<br \/>\ncompliance of pre-conditions including the period of limitation<br \/>\nfor holding the enquiry.  Hence, the High Court ought to have<br \/>\nexamined the scope and the applicability of the said regulation<br \/>\nin the light of the facts and circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBefore concluding, we may mention that the appellants<br \/>\nhave paid all the retirement benefits including pension and<br \/>\ngratuity to the respondent herein.  That the omission of word<br \/>\n&#8220;no&#8221; in the operative part of the order, quoted above, was a<br \/>\nmistake.  We reiterate that the order of the Tribunal holding that<br \/>\nthe earlier departmental enquiry stood vitiated by non-<br \/>\ncompliance of the rules of natural justice does not suffer from<br \/>\nany infirmity and need not be re-examined by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSubject to what is stated above, the appeals are allowed,<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment and orders dated 30.01.2003 are set<br \/>\naside to the extent indicated above and the matter is remitted to<br \/>\nthe High Court to adjudicate and decide the questions<br \/>\nformulated above in the light of the provisions of U.P. Civil<br \/>\nService Regulations (relating to pension) as expeditiously as<br \/>\npossible.  There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004 Author: Kapadia Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7839-7840 of 2004 PETITIONER: State of U.P. &amp; Others RESPONDENT: Gulab Shankar Srivastava DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/12\/2004 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: J U D [&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-110860","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>State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004 - 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\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-05T18:23:47+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\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-05T18:23:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1582,\"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\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-05T18:23:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004 - 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\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-05T18:23:47+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\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-05T18:23:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004"},"wordCount":1582,"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\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004","name":"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-05T18:23:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-others-vs-gulab-shankar-srivastava-on-3-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P. &amp; Others vs Gulab Shankar Srivastava on 3 December, 2004"}]},{"@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\/110860","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=110860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}