{"id":1175,"date":"2011-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011"},"modified":"2019-03-10T03:05:47","modified_gmt":"2019-03-09T21:35:47","slug":"bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                  Date of Decision : 18th May, 2011\n\n+                    W.P.(C) 3024\/2011\n\n       BIKRAM SINGH                       ..... Petitioner\n            Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu\n                     Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and\n                     Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.\n\n                                    versus\n\n       UOI & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents\n            Through:         Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with\n                             Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,\n                             Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,\n                             Advocates for R-1 to 3.\n                             Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-4.\n\n                     W.P.(C) 3025\/2011\n\n       AJAY KUMAR AHIRWAR                 ..... Petitioner\n            Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu\n                     Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and\n                     Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.\n\n                                    versus\n       UOI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents\n            Through:         Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with\n                             Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,\n                             Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,\n                             Advocates for R-1 & 2.\n                             Ms.Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocate for\n                             R-3 & 4.\n\n                     W.P.(C) 3031\/2011\n\n       PELLETI HEMANTH KUMAR              ..... Petitioner\n            Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu\n                     Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and\n                     Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.\n\n                                    versus\nW.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters              Page 1 of 19\n        UOI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents\n            Through:         Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with\n                             Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,\n                             Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,\n                             Advocates for R-1 & 2.\n                             Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-3 & 4.\n\n                     W.P.(C) 3092\/2011\n\n       SATISH K. JHA                               ..... Petitioner\n            Through:         Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu\n                             Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and\n                             Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.\n\n                                    versus\n\n       UOI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents\n            Through:         Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with\n                             Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,\n                             Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,\n                             Advocates for R-1 & 2.\n                             Ms.Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocate for\n                             R-3 & 4.\n\n                     W.P.(C) 3203\/2011\n\n       RAJIV RANJAN                               ..... Petitioner\n            Through:         Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu\n                             Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and\n                             Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.\n\n                                    versus\n\n       UOI & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents\n            Through:         Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with\n                             Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,\n                             Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,\n                             Advocates for R-1 to 3.\n                             Mr.S.S.Lingwal, Advocate for R-4 & 5.\n\n\n\n\nW.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters              Page 2 of 19\n                      W.P.(C) 3204\/2011\n\n        SUDARSAN MAHARANA                   ..... Petitioner\n            Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu\n                     Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and\n                     Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates.\n\n                                    versus\n\n        UOI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents\n             Through:        Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, ASG with\n                             Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.Nitish Gupta,\n                             Mr.G.S.Parwanda & Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,\n                             Advocates for R-1 to 3.\n                             Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-4 & 5.\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the\n        Digest?\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.             On 1.11.2010 Punjab & Sind Bank invited
\napplications from eligible candidates for selection and
\nappointment as Specialist Officer- JMG-Scale 1, expressly
\nstating that the post was in the scale of pay `14500-`25700.
\nSeeking      permission        to   compete   at   the      competitive
\nexamination to be conducted by Punjab & Sind Bank, Bikram
\nSingh the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3024\/2011 applied
\nthrough the Unit Commandant for his application to be sent
\nto the bank and the Unit Commandant forwarded the same
\nto the bank.        It be noted that Bikram Singh had joined<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters                 Page 3 of 19<\/span>
\n service as an Airman on 9.5.2003 and by 9.5.2010 had
\nrendered 7 years\u201f service under the Air Force.\n<\/p>\n
2.            In September 2010, Bank of Maharashtra invited
\napplications from eligible candidates for selection and
\nappointment as a Probationary Officer and since neither
\nSatish Kumar Jha the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3092\/2011
\nnor Ajay Kumar Ahirwar the writ petitioner of WP(C)
\nNo.3025\/2011 have disclosed what was the scale of pay
\nnotified by the bank for the post in question and have also
\nnot filed the Public Notice issued by the bank while inviting
\napplications from the eligible candidates, we do not know
\nthe scale of pay of the post in question. The two applied
\nthrough the Unit Commandant for their applications to be
\nsent to the bank and the Unit Commandant forwarded the
\nsame to the bank and relevant would it be to note that by
\nthe time they submitted their applications to the Unit
\nCommandant, the two had rendered 7 years\u201f service under
\nthe Indian Air Force.\n<\/p>\n
3.            Rajiv    Ranjan      the     writ   petitioner   of    WP(C)
\nNo.3203\/2011 got his application forwarded in August 2010
\nthrough his Unit Commandant to the United Bank of India
\nafter he had served the Indian Air Force for 7 years. The
\npost he had applied for was that of a Probationary Officer in
\nthe United Bank of India in the pay-scale `14,500-`25,700.\n<\/p>\n
4.            The remaining writ petitioners i.e. Sudarsan
\nMaharana and Pelleti Hemanth Kumar, after rendering 7
\nyears\u201f service under the Indian Air Force got forwarded
\nthrough the Unit Commandant their applications for being<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters                  Page 4 of 19<\/span>
\n appointed as a Probationary Officer with Bank of India for
\nthe post of Probationary Officer in the pay-scale `14500-
\n`25700 and the date on which they so applied was in the
\nmonth of August 2010.\n<\/p>\n
5.            It is thus not in dispute that the 6 writ petitioners
\nhad     got     their    applications      forwarded   through        the
\nCommandant of their respective Unit to the respective
\nbanks in the months of August, September and November
\n2010.\n<\/p>\n
6.            The grievance of the writ petitioners is to the Air
\nForce Authorities not granting the necessary No Objection to
\nthem thereby relieving them to join the respective bank
\ninasmuch as the writ petitioners have successfully cleared
\nthe selection process initiated by the respective banks to
\nwhom the writ petitioners had applied for employment.\n<\/p>\n
7.            Since the last date by which the writ petitioners
\nhad to join the respective bank had either lapsed or was
\nlikely to lapse in the next 4 or 5 days and since respective
\ncounsel for the banks told the Court that they cannot keep a
\npost vacant for the writ petitioners inasmuch as whether
\njoining as a Probationary Officer or as Specialist Officer-JMG,
\nall recruited persons have to undergo training during the
\nperiod of probation and upon successful completion of
\ntraining are permanently absorbed in the banks and that
\ntraining is imparted to a group with specialized teachers in
\nthe field imparting training in banking and that the banks
\nwould not be in a position to give training to individuals if
\nthe writ petitioners were to join later and that the training<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters               Page 5 of 19<\/span>
\n was to commence in the month of June 2011, arguments
\nwere heard in the writ petitions without awaiting a counter
\naffidavit inasmuch as the facts were not in dispute and thus
\non facts no response was required. A legal issue arose for
\nconsideration and for which the necessary documents were
\nfiled by the writ petitioners.             Thus, we have heard
\narguments on 16.5.2011 and had indicated in the order of
\nsaid date that judgment would be pronounced on 18.5.2011.\n<\/p>\n
8.            Pertaining to permission to be granted to Airman
\nto apply for civil posts\/services under the Central and the
\nState Governments and Public Sector Undertakings, vide Air
\nForce Order No.14\/2008 issued on 19.9.2008, extensive
\nguidelines have been issued and undisputably the case of
\nthe petitioners with respect to the relief sought has to be
\nadjudicated in terms of the said Air Force Order.\n<\/p>\n
9.            Relief sought by the writ petitioners is that a
\nmandamus be issued to the Air Force Authorities to
\nforthwith issue No Objection certificate to them to join the
\nrespective bank which has issued a letter of offer to the
\npetitioners and further to relieve the petitioners for so
\njoining.\n<\/p>\n
10.           Para 1 of the Air Force Order No.14\/2008 reads
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Airman\/NCs(E), who have completed seven
\n       years of service from the date of enrollment, are
\n       permitted to apply for civil posts under
\n       Central\/State Government and Public Sector
\n       Undertakings including Para-Military Forces. Non-
\n       Govt organizations (NGOs)\/Trusts, even if funded<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters           Page 6 of 19<\/span>
\n        by the Government shall not be covered in the
\n       permissible category of posts. The categories of
\n       posts, corresponding length of service and
\n       eligibility are to be determined as given below.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n             Category     Length of        Permissible Categories of civil\n                           Service                      posts\n        a       I           7 yrs           (A) Group \u201eA\u201f or equivalent\n                                            posts (maximum of the pay\n                                            scale not less than `13500,\n                                           as revised from time to time)\n\n                                            (B) Group \u201eB\u201f or equivalent\n                                            posts (maximum of the pay\n                                           scale not less than `9000 but\n                                           less than `13500, as revised\n                                                 from time to time)\n\n       B        II          15 yrs           Category- I above and any\n                                                 other post except\n                                            temporary\/contractual post\n                                                and Private Sector.\n\n       c        III       18 years         Category I, II above and any\n                           (having          other post in Private Sector\n                         submitted                   including\n                        unwillingness      temporary\/contractual posts\n                          or denied             or engagement on\n                        extension of                deputation.\n                        engagement)\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
11.           Notwithstanding the imperfect use of language
\nunder the caption \u201ePERMISSIBLE CATEGORIES OF CIVIL
\nPOSTS\u201f and to highlight the imperfection we may only state
\nthat in para (b) pertaining to Category-I one could have
\nsimply written: Group \u201eB\u201f or equivalent posts having
\nminimum pay of `9,000\/- and maximum `13,500\/- rather
\nthan to say: in the pay-scale not less than `9,000\/- but less
\nthan `13,500\/-. Be that as it may, relevant would it be to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters                  Page 7 of 19<\/span>
\n state that as per para 1 it stands stipulated that minimum 7
\nyears service must be rendered before permission can be
\ngranted to an Airman to apply for and proceed to join upon
\nselection, a Group \u201eA\u201f or a Group \u201eB\u201f or an equivalent post.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We are not concerned with Category-II and Category-III and
\nthus we do not expand on said categories.\n<\/p>\n
12.           Then comes into play para 2 of Air Force Order
\nNo.14\/2008, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “2. All applications for above categories of
\n       posts will be directly forwarded to the
\n       prospective employers by the units after
\n       verifying the eligibility including criticality of
\n       manpower. Application of airmen belonging to
\n       critical trades shall be rejected at unit level.
\n       However, the condition of criticality will not be
\n       applicable to the applicants of Category IA and III
\n       above, in whose case the applications will be
\n       forwarded despite criticality in their trades. The
\n       criticality of trades will be updated by Air HQ
\n       twice a year, in June and December and would
\n       be intimated to Stns\/Units through their
\n       respective Command HQs. Airmen who are on
\n       deputation to ARC are also eligible to apply for
\n       civil posts as per Para 1 above and their
\n       applications to be processed through PHS C\/O
\n       AFCAO, where unit copy of service documents of
\n       ARC deputationists are held.        Forwarding of
\n       applications     shall not    be   construed    as
\n       acceptance to grant NOC, which shall be issued
\n       as per the procedure laid down in subsequent
\n       paras of this AFO.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.           Relevant would it be to highlight that the last
\nsentence of para 2 of the Air Force Order makes it clear that
\nforwarding      of applications shall not be construed as
\nacceptance to grant NOC, which shall be issued as per the
\nprocedure laid down in subsequent paras of this AFO.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters         Page 8 of 19<\/span><\/p>\n
 14.           Paragraph 7 of the Air Force Order becomes
\nrelevant in view of the last sentence of paragraph 2 above
\nand it stipulates as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “7. Application for NOC is to be submitted by
\n       the individual after receiving call letter for the
\n       interview\/verification of documents or after the
\n       result of written test where selection is based on
\n       success in written test only. However, in all
\n       cases NOC is to be obtained by the individual
\n       invariably before submitting application for
\n       discharge on being selected for the post.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.           Now the problem. If the person concerned seeks
\npermission to join an organization on a civil post in Group
\n\u201eA\u201f or equivalent, the requirement is that the maximum of
\nthe pay-scale has not to be less than `13,500\/- as revised
\nfrom time to time and for this post, as per paragraph 2 of
\nthe AFO, criticality in the trade has not to be considered. If
\nhowever, the post is in Group \u201eB\u201f, criticality in the trade
\nwould be a criteria for not releasing the person concerned.
\nIn other words there is no absolute right in an Air Force
\nPersonnel to proceed to a Group \u201eB\u201f or equivalent post
\nwhereas such absolute right is available qua a Group \u201eA\u201f
\npost, upon the condition of having rendered 7 years service.
\nThe fact on which the problem has arisen in the instant writ
\npetitions is the scale of pay on which the petitioners seek to
\njoin i.e. whether the post they are seeking to join is
\nequivalent to Group \u201eA\u201f or is it equivalent to Group \u201eB\u201f.\n<\/p>\n
16.           Save and except for one post where the scale of
\npay has not been disclosed by the writ petitioner thereof, all
\nothers seek to join a bank in the pay-scale `14,500-`25,700.
\nPara 1 of the Air Force Order, refers to Group \u201eA\u201f or<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters        Page 9 of 19<\/span>
\n equivalent post as a post where the maximum of the pay-
\nscale is not less than `13,500\/- and uses the further
\nexpression: \u201eAs revised from time to time\u201f. The petitioner\u201fs
\nclaim that the posts to which they proceed has the
\nmaximum in the scale, the sum of `25700\/- and it is
\napparent that the said amount is not less than `13500\/- and
\nthus they claim an absolute right to be released from
\nservice. The Air Force Authorities would allege that when
\nAFO 14\/2008 was issued on 19.9.2008, the Government of
\nIndia circular in vogue, classifying posts in Group \u201eA\u201f, \u201eB\u201f, \u201eC\u201f
\nand \u201eD\u201f, stipulated as under:-\n<\/p>\n
    S.No.            Description of Posts       Classification\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    1.   A Central Civil Post carrying a pay    Group \u201eA\u201f
\n         or a scale of pay with a maximum
\n         of not less than `13500.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2.   A Central Civil Post carrying a pay    Group \u201eB\u201f
\n         or a scale of pay with a maximum
\n         of not less than `9000 but less than
\n         `13500.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3.   A Central Civil Post carrying a pay    Group \u201eC\u201f
\n         or a scale of pay with a maximum
\n         of over `4000 but less than `9000.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4.   A Central Civil Post carrying a pay    Group \u201eD\u201f
\n         or a scale of pay with the maximum
\n         of which is `4000 or less.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.           It was only on 9.4.2009 that the Government of
\nIndia issued a revised order with respect to classification of
\nposts, stipulating as under:-<\/p>\n
\nSl.No.                Description of Posts            Classification\n                                                         of posts\n1           (a) A Central Civil post in Cabinet\n<\/pre>\n
            Secretary\u201fs scale (`90000-fixed), Apex
\n            Scale   (`80000-fixed)  and     Higher<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters             Page 10 of 19<\/span>
\n            Administrative   Grade          plus   scale
\n           (`75500-80000); and<\/p>\n
          (b) A Central Civil post carrying the              Group \u201eA\u201f
\n          following grade pays:-\n<\/p>\n
          `12000, `10000, `8900 and `8700 in
\n          the scale of pay of `37400-67000 in
\n          Pay-Band-4, and `7600, `6600 and
\n          `5400 in the scale of pay of `15600-\n<\/p>\n
          39100 in Pay-Band-3.\n<\/p>\n
2.         A Central Civil post carrying the                 Group \u201eB\u201f
\n           following grade pays:-\n<\/p>\n
           `5400, `4800, `4600 and `4200 in the
\n           scale of pay of `9300-34800 in Pay-\n<\/p>\n
           Band-2.\n<\/p>\n
3.         A Central Civil post carrying the                 Group \u201eC\u201f
\n           following grade pays:-\n<\/p>\n
           `2800, `2400, `2000, `1900 and `1800
\n           in the scale of pay of `5200-20200 in
\n           Pay-Band-1.<\/p>\n
\n\n4.         A Central Civil post carrying the                 Group \u201eD\u201f\n           following grade pays:-                          (till the posts\n           `1300, `1400, `1600, `1650 in the                      are\n           scale of pay of `4440-7440 in 1S Scale            upgraded)\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
18.           The Air Force Authorities would contend that
\nwhen AFO 14\/2008 was promulgated on 14.9.2008 it had
\nreferred to the classification of posts with reference to the
\nGovernment of India classification then in vogue.                     It be
\nhighlighted that with the acceptance and implementation of
\nthe 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, with
\neffect from 1.1.2006, the pay-scales were revised into pay-
\nbands and the actual acceptance and implementation took
\nplace around October 2009 with retrospective effect and
\nthis is the reason why when AFO 14\/2008 was issued it
\nreferred to the scales with reference to the previous scales
\nW.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters                  Page 11 of 19<\/span>
\n and further this is the reason why it was made clear that the
\nscale mentioned would be as revised from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
19.           Now, one thing is clear.        To be entitled to the
\nbenefit of the post in Category-I(A) of AFO 14\/2008, the
\nessential requirement has to be that the post has to be in a
\npay-scale maximum of which is not less than `13,500 as
\nrevised     from      time     to    time,   meaning   thereby         the
\ncorresponding figure\/sum as per the Government of India
\nOffice Order dated 9.4.2009 would have to be looked into.\n<\/p>\n
20.           It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner
\nthat we have no material wherefrom it can be gathered that
\nthe post to which the petitioners had applied, as per the
\nadvertisement issued, disclosed the pre-revised or the
\nrevised scales of pay.          We agree.     Unfortunately, learned
\ncounsel for the banks could throw no light. But, all learned
\ncounsel were in agreement that in terms of industry level
\nsettlement dated 27.4.2010 where all public sector banks
\nand the unions of the employees had hammered out a
\nsettlement, pay-scales had to be revised as per the
\nsettlement.\n<\/p>\n
21.           Thus, one issue of law admittedly gets settled,
\nbeing that, reference in the pay-scale being not less than
\n`13,500 pertaining to Group \u201eA\u201f post in AFO 14\/2008 is with
\nreference to the pay-scale prior to the implementation of
\nthe 6th Central Pay Commission\u201fs recommendations and the
\ncorresponding sum would have to be worked out with
\nreference to the latest Office Memorandum issued by the
\nGovernment on the subject and the relevant content
\nwhereof has been extracted by us in para 17 above.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters               Page 12 of 19<\/span><\/p>\n
 22.           We     may      note    that   on    22.5.2009     the     Air
\nHeadquarters had issued a clarificatory order in harmony
\nwith what we have observed herein above.\n<\/p>\n
23.           Thus, the only relief which the petitioners can
\nobtain is requiring a direction to be issued to the respective
\nbank to forthwith convey to the Air Force Authorities
\nwhether the pay-scale referred to in the advertisements
\nissued by the respective bank and pursuant whereto
\npetitioners applied were the pre-revised or the pay-scales
\nafter revision, and if the pay-scales were pre-revised, the
\ncorresponding scale post-revision.                Thereupon, Air Force
\nAuthorities would do the needful and if the information
\nprovided is that the scales of pay were pre-revised, by
\ntaking into consideration the revised scales of pay, if the
\nposts are a Group \u201eA\u201f post in the pay-scale maximum of
\nwhich is not less than the sum equivalent to `13,500\/-, post
\nrevision, to grant the necessary No Objection to the
\npetitioners without considering the criticality of the trade;
\nand if the information provided by the bank is that the
\nadvertisements referred to the revised scale of pay, issue of
\ncriticality would be considered and if not found critical to
\nthe trade in which the respective petitioner is working, to
\nissue the necessary No Objection Certificate.\n<\/p>\n
24.           But before we issue the formal directions, we
\ndeal with a four-fold submission urged by Sh.Arvind Nayar,
\nlearned counsel for the writ petitioners. With reference to a
\ndecision dated 2.2.2011 authored by one of us, namely
\nPradeep Nandrajog, J., deciding a batch of writ petitions,
\nlead matter being Sgt.Gedela Yugankar vs. UOI & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters                 Page 13 of 19<\/span><\/p>\n
 WP(C) No.722\/2010, learned counsel urged that considering
\nAFO 14\/2008, on the principle of legitimate expectation,
\nrelief was granted to the writ petitioners therein and thus
\ncounsel     claims      parity    on        the   principle   of   legitimate
\nexpectation.\n<\/p>\n
25.           The     argument         is    mis-founded      inasmuch        as
\nlegitimate expectation of the writ petitioners in the batch of
\nwrit petitions decided vide decision dated 2.2.2011 was
\nconsidered in light of the fact that said writ petitioners had
\napplied when AFO Order No.4\/2007 dated 1.6.2007 was in
\nforce.    They had cleared the written examinations by the
\ntime AFO No.14\/2008 had come into being and we had
\nnoted that the said writ petitioners had commenced the
\nrelay race under the terms of AFO No.4\/2007 and had a
\nlegitimate expectation that they would be permitted to
\ncomplete the relay race under the said AFO and thus had
\nheld that the revised AFO 14\/2008 could not defeat their
\nlegitimate expectation. We have highlighted herein above
\nthat the instant writ petitioners have commenced their relay
\nrace after AFO 14\/2008 had come into effect on 19.9.2008
\nand AFO No.4\/2007 had stood superseded.\n<\/p>\n
26.           Our observations pertaining to the applications
\nbeing forwarded by the Unit Commanders being the
\nfoundation for legitimate expectation in the said decision
\nhave to be read in light of the clarification we have penned
\nin the preceding paragraph 25 herein above and not as
\nwidely projected by learned counsel, that merely because
\nthe Unit Commandant forwarded the application would give
\nbirth to a legitimate expectation.                     Second reason to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters                      Page 14 of 19<\/span>
\n distinguish the said judgment is that the issue raised
\ntherein was when would the date on which 7 years
\nminimum service required to be rendered has to be
\nreckoned, which is not the issue in the instant writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
27.           Learned counsel made a second submission and
\nfor which reference was made to two decisions of a Bench
\nof which one of us, namely Pradeep Nandrajog, J., was a
\nmember of, being the decision dated 3.2.2011 in WP(C)
\nNo.505\/2011 Brajesh Jaiswal vs. UOI & Ors.<\/a> wherein
\npertaining to a Probationary Officer in the Central Bank of
\nIndia and WP(C) No.7482\/2010 Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs.
\nUOI & Ors. in which another officer who desired to join Life
\nInsurance Corporation of India, a mandamus was issued to
\nforthwith issue No Objection Certificates notwithstanding
\nthe applicable pay-scales for said posts were `14,500-
\n`25,700 i.e. the same as in the instant writ petitions (save
\nand except one in which applicable pay-scale is not known)
\nand thus counsel would submit that instant writ petitioners
\nare entitled to be treated at par, more so for the reason the
\ndepartment had implemented the mandamus issued qua
\nsaid two persons.\n<\/p>\n
28.           Sh.A.S.Chandhiok, learned ASG fairly conceded
\nthat the department was at fault by not considering the
\nmaterial now placed before this Court with respect to the
\npay-scales mentioned in AFO 14\/2008 with reference to the
\npre-revised pay-scales and not drawing attention of this
\nCourt to the Government of India order dated 9.4.2009,
\nrelevant extracts whereof have been noted in para 17
\nabove as also ignoring that the Air Force Authorities had<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters        Page 15 of 19<\/span>
\n issued a clarificatory order on 2.5.2009 and thus learned
\ncounsel would urge that merely because, in the past, Air
\nForce Authorities acted under a mistaken notion, would be
\nno    ground     to    plead     estoppel   against   the   Air   Force
\nAuthorities.\n<\/p>\n
29.           We agree. There cannot be any equality and a
\nwrong can never be a foundation of a claim for equivalence.
\nFurther, if it is found that in the past a party was acting
\nunder a mistaken belief it cannot give birth to a plea of
\nestoppel in the mouth of a 3rd party. Estoppel is founded
\nwhen a person shows that acting bona fide upon the
\nrepresentation of the opposite party the person concerned
\nhas altered his position, thereby estopping the party making
\nthe representation from resiling from or withdrawing the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
30.           The petitioners may feel discriminated against, in
\nthat a few of their colleagues have sneaked past on
\nequivalent posts, but this would be their feeling and not the
\nopinion of the law inasmuch as if some persons are wrongly
\npermitted to sneak across and the error of permitting them
\nto sneak across is detected, thereby not permitting others
\nto sneak past, would not amount to discrimination in the
\neyes of the law. It is trite said that what a common man
\nperceives to be wrong need not necessarily be wrong in the
\neyes of the law and vice-versa what a common man
\nperceives to be right need not necessarily right in the eyes
\nof the law.\n<\/p>\n
31.           The third submission urged was that the Ministry
\nof Finance (Department of Financial Services) had issued a<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters               Page 16 of 19<\/span>
\n notification on 13.7.2010 notifying the Regional Rural Banks
\n(Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Employees)
\nRules 2010 in which various categories of posts were
\nnotified in the Regional Rural Banks and all posts in Scale I
\nto Scale V were classified as group \u201eA\u201f posts and that the
\nposts to which petitioners have been issued letters of offer
\nare in Scale I i.e. are group \u201eA\u201f posts.\n<\/p>\n
32.           The submission has no legs to stand on for the
\nreason there may be a different criteria for categorizing
\nposts in the banking sector vis-\u00e0-vis their categorization for
\ncivil services. What is of relevance is para 1 of the Air Force
\nOrder No.14\/2008 where group \u201eA\u201f post is not the sole
\ncriteria but only such group \u201eA\u201f posts the maximum of the
\npay scale whereof is not less than `13,500\/- as revised from
\ntime to time. Thus, for the purposes of para 1 of the Air
\nForce Order No.14\/2008 the essential condition has to be
\nthat the maximum of the pay scale for the post has to be
\nnot less than `13,500\/- as revised from time to time. We
\nhave already discussed hereinabove the effect of the figure
\n\u201e`13,500\/-\u201e being qualified by the expression \u201eas revised
\nfrom time to time\u201f.\n<\/p>\n
33.           Last submission urged that this probably was the
\nlast chance for the petitioners to take a competitive
\nexamination for a Group \u201eA\u201f post or an equivalent post and
\nthus in equity the petitioners be allowed the relief prayed
\nfor.\n<\/p>\n
34.           Our sympathies for a cause, cannot determine
\nthe course of the law. If the petitioners are not entitled for
\nsomething in law, on our misplaced sympathies, we cannot<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters        Page 17 of 19<\/span>
\n create a right.\n<\/p>\n
35.           Entitlement of the petitioners is governed by a
\npolicy and which we note is AFO 14\/2008.                      It was not
\ndisputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that under
\nthe Air Force Act, the petitioners are obliged to serve till the
\nage of superannuation and that other than AFO 14\/2008
\nthey have no enforceable right to seek a premature
\ndischarge from service and since we have interpreted AFO
\nNo.14\/2008 by holding that the sum of `13,500\/- referred to
\nin column-3 pertaining to Group \u201eA\u201f posts is referable to the
\npre-revised pay-scales and the language of the AFO
\nNo.14\/2008 itself makes it clear that the reference to said
\nsum would be as revised from time to time, there is no
\nescape but to conclude by holding that the only relief which
\nthe petitioners would be entitled to would be to issue a
\nmandamus as discussed in para 23 above and thus we
\ndispose of the writ petitions directing the respective banks
\nin each of the writ petitions to forthwith convey to the Air
\nForce Authorities whether the pay-scale referred to in the
\nadvertisements issued by the respective bank and pursuant
\nwhereto petitioners applied were the pre-revised or the pay-
\nscales after revision, and if the pay-scales were pre-revised,
\nthe corresponding scale, post revision.                Thereupon, Air
\nForce     Authorities      would     do    the   needful     and     if    the
\ninformation provided is that the scales of pay were pre-
\nrevised, by taking into consideration the revised scales of
\npay, if the posts are a Group \u201eA\u201f post in the pay-scale
\nmaximum of which is not less than the sum equivalent to
\n`13,500\/-, post revision, would grant the necessary No<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters                   Page 18 of 19<\/span>
\n Objection      to   the    petitioners     without   considering        the
\ncriticality of the trade and if the information provided by the
\nbank is that the advertisements referred to the revised
\nscale of pay, issue of criticality would be considered and if
\nnot found critical to the trade in which the respective
\npetitioner is working, to issue the necessary No Objection
\nCertificate. The banks would convey the information to the
\nChief of the Air Staff at Air Headquarters New Delhi within a
\nperiod of 3 days and within 4 days thereafter the Chief of
\nthe Air Staff would convey the further decision to the
\npetitioners     and     needless      to   state   reasons    would     be
\nindicated therein.        If any petitioner is found eligible to be
\nappointed the necessary discharge certificate would be
\nissued     within     further     1   week    thereof   and    in   such
\ncircumstance time shall be suitably extended by the bank
\nconcerned to enable the said petitioner to join under the
\nbank concerned by taking into account the time fixed by us
\nhereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
36.           No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                             (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
\n                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                             (INDERMEET KAUR)
\n                                                    JUDGE
\nMay 18, 2011
\ndk<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.3024\/2011 & connected matters                Page 19 of 19<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 18th May, 2011 + W.P.(C) 3024\/2011 BIKRAM SINGH ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Arvind Nayar, Mr.Shubhanshu Singh, Mr.Vikas Kumar and Ms.Neha Kushwaha, Advocates. versus UOI & […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-09T21:35:47+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T21:35:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4106,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T21:35:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-09T21:35:47+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T21:35:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011"},"wordCount":4106,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011","name":"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T21:35:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bikram-singh-vs-uoi-ors-on-18-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bikram Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1175","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=1175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}