{"id":111137,"date":"1993-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993"},"modified":"2016-12-21T15:10:57","modified_gmt":"2016-12-21T09:40:57","slug":"union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC,   Supl.  (1)  84 JT 1993 (5)\t307<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVIJAY KUMARI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/09\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  Supl.  (1)  84 JT 1993 (5)\t307\n 1993 SCALE  (3)697\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nB.P. JEEVAN  REDDY, J.- Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   Heard the counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   The  appeal  is preferred against the judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,<br \/>\nallowing  the petition filed by the respondent in  O.A.\t No.<br \/>\n2551 of 1990.  The Union of India is the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The  respondent, Vijay Kumari was appointed as  a\tLab.<br \/>\nAttendant   in\tthe  Women&#8217;s  Polytechnic,  Directorate\t  of<br \/>\nTechnical Education, Delhi Administration on October 8, 1973<br \/>\nin the pay scale of Rs 950-1500.  She continued in that post<br \/>\ntill February 22, 1988 i.e., for a period of about 15 years.<br \/>\nFor the last four years i.e., from May 16, 1984 to  February<br \/>\n22,  1988 she was teaching the students of two-year  diploma<br \/>\ncourse in Secretarial Practice (Hindi).\n<\/p>\n<p>+   Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10526 of 1991<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">85<\/span><br \/>\nOn February 23, 1988 she was promoted to the post of  Junior<br \/>\nLecturer in the pay scale of Rs 2000-3200.  On September 19,<br \/>\n1988  she was reverted to the post of Lab.   Attendant\twith<br \/>\neffect\tfrom August 23, 1988 under an order which  reads  as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;In continuation of this Directorate order  of<br \/>\n\t      even  number  dated July 24,  1988,  and\twith<br \/>\n\t      prior  approval  of  Secretary,  Training\t and<br \/>\n\t      Technical\t  Education,  Miss   Vijay   Kumari,<br \/>\n\t      appointed\t  as   Jr.   Lecturer,\t Secretarial<br \/>\n\t      Practice\t (Hindi),  on  purely  ad  hoc\t and<br \/>\n\t      emergent basis stands reverted to her original<br \/>\n\t      post  of Laboratory Attendant,  w.e.f.  August<br \/>\n\t      23, 1988.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>5.   Complaining  against  the said order,  the\t respondent,<br \/>\nMiss  Vijay  Kumari approached the Tribunal on\tDecember  3,<br \/>\n1990.  She characterised the impugned order of reversion  as<br \/>\nmala fide, discriminatory and contrary to rules.  The  Union<br \/>\nof  India  in  its counter-affidavit  disputed\tthe  various<br \/>\naverments  made\t by  the  respondent.\tIt  is\tstated\tthat<br \/>\naccording to the rules in force up to June 18, 1988, she was<br \/>\nnot  qualified\tfor  being  appointed  as  Junior  Lecturer.<br \/>\nAccording  to  those  rules,  only  persons  with  a  second<br \/>\ndivision  degree in B.A.\/B.Com. with two years&#8217;\t diploma  in<br \/>\nSecretarial  Practice  from the recognised  university\twere<br \/>\neligible.   Yet\t another qualification for  eligibility\t was<br \/>\nthree\tyears&#8217;\t teaching  experience  in   the\t  field\t  of<br \/>\nEnglish\/Hindi  Stenography in a recognised institution.\t  As<br \/>\nagainst\t these\tprescribed  qualifications,  the  respondent<br \/>\npossessed a third division degree in B.A., a third  division<br \/>\ndegree in M.A. Hindi and a diploma in Secretarial  Practice.<br \/>\nIt  is stated that the respondent had undoubtedly  performed<br \/>\nthe  duties  attached to the post of Junior Lecturer  for  a<br \/>\nperiod of four years and thereafter was promoted temporarily<br \/>\nas  Junior  Lecturer,  but that\t was  because  no  qualified<br \/>\npersons\t were  available for the said post.  It\t is  further<br \/>\nstated\tthat along with others the respondent&#8217;s\t candidature<br \/>\nwas  also  considered  &#8220;on the\tbasis  of  proposed  amended<br \/>\nqualifications&#8221; but the Staff Selection Committee which\t met<br \/>\non May 19, 1988 did not find any of the candidates including<br \/>\nthe respondent suitable for the said post.  It was  proposed<br \/>\nto call for fresh applications for filling up the said post,<br \/>\nbut  before that could be done, the said post  itself  stood<br \/>\nabolished by virtue of the order dated July 13, 1988  issued<br \/>\nin implementation of revised staff structure based on  Madan<br \/>\nCommittee recommendations.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   The Tribunal relied upon two circumstances in favour of<br \/>\nthe respondent:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  The   proceedings\t of   the   Delhi    Administration,<br \/>\nDirectorate  of Technical Education dated April 27, 1989  on<br \/>\nthe  subject  of &#8220;adjustment and drawal of  pay\t of  surplus<br \/>\nstaff&#8217;.\t   Under  this\tproceedings  communicated   to\t the<br \/>\nPrincipals of various Polytechnics, the Delhi Administration<br \/>\ndirected  that\t&#8220;the pay of the affected  officials  may  be<br \/>\ndrawn as indicated therein&#8221;.  The said proceedings refers to<br \/>\n33 persons in various categories.  It indicates which person<br \/>\nshall draw pay against which post.  A number of lady  Junior<br \/>\nLecturers  are\tpermitted to draw pay against the  posts  of<br \/>\nLady  Lecturers\t specified against their  respective  names.<br \/>\nThe  name  of  the respondent occurs at serial No.  5  as  a<br \/>\nJunior\tLecturer.   She is also permitted to  draw  the\t pay<br \/>\nagainst\t the  post of Lady  Lecturer  [Secretarial  Practice<br \/>\n(Hindi)],  but this is limited only up to August  22,  1988.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal says that while not limiting the period for any<br \/>\nother  person mentioned in the said  proceedings,  providing<br \/>\nsuch  limitation in the case of respondent alone amounts  to<br \/>\ndiscrimination;\t and  (b) The letter from  the\tMinistry  of<br \/>\nHuman\tResource  Development,\tDepartment   of\t  Education,<br \/>\nGovernment of India dated<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">86<\/span><br \/>\nSeptember  25,\t1987 addressed to the  Secretary,  Technical<br \/>\nEducation, Delhi Administration, which stated that :<br \/>\n.lm15<br \/>\n&#8220;The existing staff which will be declared surplus by virtue<br \/>\nof the implementation of Madan Committee recommendations may<br \/>\nbe  absorbed in the revised structure provided they  fulfill<br \/>\nthe  necessary\tprescribed qualifications  in  the  required<br \/>\npost.\tHowever, the existing staff members who do not\thave<br \/>\nthe requisite qualifications for appointment in a particular<br \/>\ngrade  should  be given an  opportunity\t to  upgrade\/improve<br \/>\ntheir qualifications within a period of 8 years and they  be<br \/>\nsent for this purpose to the appropriate institutions  under<br \/>\nthe available schemes.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   In the light of the said decision of the Government  of<br \/>\nIndia,\tthe Tribunal said, the reversion of  the  respondent<br \/>\nfrom the post of Junior Lecturer to her substantive post  of<br \/>\nLab.   Attendant is not tenable.  She ought to be  continued<br \/>\nin  the post of Junior Lecturer and be given an\t opportunity<br \/>\nto  upgrade\/improve  her qualifications within a  period  of<br \/>\neight years and thereafter absorbed in the appropriate post.<br \/>\nIn  this  connection,  the Tribunal  also  relied  upon\t the<br \/>\nopinion\t of  the Delhi\tAdministration,\t Service  Department<br \/>\ngiven on December 30, 1988 which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;If Smt Vijay Kumari continues on the post  of<br \/>\n\t      Junior Lecturer on ad hoc basis, her extension<br \/>\n\t      on  this higher post can be considered by\t the<br \/>\n\t      department.  But in case she has already\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      reverted\tto the lower post as stated in X  on<br \/>\n\t      pre-page,\t it may not be advisable to  promote<br \/>\n\t      her  again  to  this higher post\teven  for  a<br \/>\n\t      limited  period  unless the  department  feels<br \/>\n\t      justified to do so.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.   So\t far  as the first circumstance relied upon  by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal  is concerned, the Tribunal has not taken  care  to<br \/>\nverify\twhether the other Junior Lecturers mentioned in\t the<br \/>\nsaid  proceedings are similarly situated as the\t respondent.<br \/>\nWithout\t such a verification and a finding, it would not  be<br \/>\nadvisable  to record a finding of discrimination or to\trely<br \/>\nupon  the  said circumstance as a factor in  favour  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   If the other lecturers mentioned in  the\tsaid<br \/>\nproceedings   were   regularly\tappointed   lecturers,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent being only a temporarily-promoted Junior Lecturer<br \/>\ncannot seek parity with them.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Be\t that  as it may, the Tribunal seems to\t be  in\t the<br \/>\nright  insofar\tas the, second\tcircumstance  is  concerned.<br \/>\nThere  is no reason why the respondent should not  be  given<br \/>\nthe benefit of the decision of the Government of India which<br \/>\nhas been communicated to the Technical Education  Department<br \/>\nof the Delhi Administration on September 25, 1987.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  But  then\tthe question arises whether  she  should  be<br \/>\ncontinued meanwhile in the category of Lab.  Attendant or as<br \/>\na Junior Lecturer.  Having regard to the relevant facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, the following directions, in\t our<br \/>\nopinion, meet the ends of justice :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   If\tthe post of Junior Lecturer  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      Secretarial  Practice  (Hindi)  is   available<br \/>\n\t      today, whether under the designation of Junior<br \/>\n\t      Lecturer or Lady Lecturer as the case may\t be,<br \/>\n\t      and  if no other person is holding that  post,<br \/>\n\t      the respondent may be posted and continued  in<br \/>\n\t      that  post  in  terms  of\t th6  Government  of<br \/>\n\t      India&#8217;s letter dated September 25, 1987;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)  in case the respondent cannot be  posted<br \/>\n\t      as  Junior Lecturer in terms of direction\t (i)<br \/>\n\t      given above, and if no other appropriate\tpost<br \/>\n\t      is available<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      87<\/span><br \/>\n\t      wherein  the  respondent\tcan  be\t adjusted  a<br \/>\n\t      supernumerary  post  may\tbe  created  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      category\tof  Junior  Lecturer  within   three<br \/>\n\t      months  from today and the  respondent  posted<br \/>\n\t      and   continued  therein\tin  terms   of\t the<br \/>\n\t      aforesaid letter of Government of India; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (iii) in either event &#8211; whether she is  posted<br \/>\n\t      and  continued  in terms of direction  (i)  or<br \/>\n\t      direction\t (ii), she will be entitled only  to<br \/>\n\t      the salary of a junior lecturer from the\tdate<br \/>\n\t      of her posting in such post.  In either event,<br \/>\n\t      she will not be entitled to arrears of  salary<br \/>\n\t      in   the\tcategory  of  Junior  Lecturer\t (as<br \/>\n\t      directed by the Tribunal).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>11.  The  civil\t appeal is disposed of\twith  the  aforesaid<br \/>\ndirections.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">88<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (1) 84 JT 1993 (5) 307 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: VIJAY KUMARI DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/09\/1993 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) [&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-111137","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>Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-21T09:40:57+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=\"7 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-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-21T09:40:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1391,\"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-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-21T09:40:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993\"}]},{\"@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 vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-21T09:40:57+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993","datePublished":"1993-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-21T09:40:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993"},"wordCount":1391,"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-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993","name":"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-21T09:40:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-vijay-kumari-on-9-september-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Vijay Kumari on 9 September, 1993"}]},{"@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\/111137","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=111137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}