{"id":123096,"date":"2010-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-30T11:37:10","modified_gmt":"2016-04-30T06:07:10","slug":"bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/10269\/1999\t 25\/ 25\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10269 of 1999\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil  judge ? No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBHAVNAGAR\nUNIVERSITY - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nN\nK OJHA - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMITUL K SHELAT for\nPetitioner \nPARTY-IN-PERSON for\nRespondent \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/12\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tThe
\n\tpetitioner, Bhavnagar University, has preferred this petition under
\n\tArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the
\n\tcommon judgment and order dated 11.08.1999, passed in Applications
\n\tNos.5\/1998 and 2\/1999, by the Gujarat Universities Services
\n\tTribunal, Ahmedabad (“the Tribunal” for short).\n<\/p>\n
\tBriefly
\n\tstated, the relevant facts as emerging from the record are that, the
\n\trespondent – Shri N.K.Ojha, who has appeared as
\n\tparty-in-person, was appointed as Deputy Executive Engineer at the
\n\tpetitioner-University on 07.10.1991, on probation. The services of
\n\tthe respondent were confirmed on the post of Deputy Executive
\n\tEngineer on 23.12.1992. The respondent applied for the post of
\n\tUniversity Engineer, at the M.S.University, Baroda. The respondent
\n\twas selected and appointed on probation at M.S.University for a
\n\tperiod of two years, by order dated 24.06.1996. He joined services
\n\tat M.S.University on 19.07.1996. Under the provisions of the
\n\tOrdinances and Statutes framed by Bhavnagar University, more
\n\tparticularly, clause (C) of Rule 8 of Ordinance 89, the respondent
\n\twas required to give notice to the petitioner-University before
\n\tleaving service. By letter dated 29.06.1996, the respondent
\n\trequested the petitioner-University to waive the requirement of
\n\tpaying notice pay, and for permission to retain his lien at the
\n\tpetitioner-University for two years. The request of the respondent
\n\twas considered by the Executive Council of the petitioner-University
\n\tat its meeting held on 05.07.1996, and it was resolved that the
\n\trespondent be relieved after office hours on 18.06.1996 to enable
\n\thim to join M.S.University. The lien of the respondent was
\n\tmaintained for two years with effect from 18.06.1996. However, the
\n\trequest for waiver of notice pay was not acceded to, and the
\n\trespondent was directed to deposit notice pay, equal to salary for
\n\ttwo months and twelve days.  In view of the fact that the respondent
\n\thad intimated the petitioner-University regarding his joining the
\n\tM.S.University at Baroda on 29.06.1996, and as he was relieved with
\n\teffect from 18.07.1996, salary for 18 days was not deducted. In
\n\tresponse to the Resolution passed by the Executive Council, as
\n\taforesaid, the respondent deposited an amount of Rs.6,000\/- towards
\n\tnotice pay, on 18.07.1996. After joining M.S.University, Baroda, the
\n\trespondent, vide letter dated 20.08.1997, requested the
\n\tpetitioner-University to transfer the total amount of his General
\n\tProvident Fund (“GPF”) to M.S.University, Baroda. In
\n\tresponse to this letter, the petitioner-University wrote letter
\n\tdated 28.09.1997, asking the respondent to clarify whether he did
\n\tnot want to return to the petitioner-University and wanted to have
\n\this lien terminated. Ultimately, the lien of the respondent was
\n\tterminated on 10.11.1997. The respondent came to be confirmed as
\n\tUniversity Engineer at M.S.University, on 30.05.1998.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\trespondent filed application No.5\/1998 before the Tribunal,
\n\tchallenging the termination of lien and demanding refund of the
\n\tamount of Rs.6,000\/- paid by him towards notice pay. The said
\n\tapplication was permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally, by order
\n\tdated 28.12.1998 of the Tribunal, with liberty to approach the
\n\tTribunal in case of difficulty. The respondent again made a
\n\trepresentation to the Executive Council of the petitioner-University
\n\tfor waiver of notice pay. This request did not find favour with the
\n\tExecutive Council, and was rejected. In view of the withdrawal of
\n\tthe application before the Tribunal, the services of the new
\n\tincumbent holding the post of Engineer in the petitioner-University
\n\twere confirmed by the Executive Council.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\trespondent preferred an application before the Tribunal for revival
\n\tof his earlier application No.5\/1998 which was allowed. At the same
\n\ttime, the respondent preferred another application, being
\n\tApplication No.2\/1999 challenging the decision of the Executive
\n\tCouncil whereby, his request for waiver of notice pay was rejected.
\n\tBoth the applications were heard together and decided by the
\n\timpugned judgment. The Tribunal, by the said judgment and order
\n\tdated 11.08.1999, allowed the applications of the respondent and
\n\tdirected the petitioner-University to refund the amount of notice
\n\tpay. Further, it imposed costs, quantified at Rs.14,000\/- upon the
\n\tpetitioner-University. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the
\n\tpetitioner-University has approached this Court, by way of the
\n\tpresent petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Mitul
\n\tK.Shelat, learned advocate for the petitioner, has made elaborate
\n\tsubmissions, to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe
\naction of the petitioner-University in demanding notice pay of two
\nmonths and twelve days from the respondent is wholly justified and is
\nin accordance with the provisions of Clause (C) of Rule 8 of
\nOrdinance 89, which stipulates that no employee shall leave the
\nemployment of the University without giving three months’ notice, and
\nin the event such notice is not given, the University will be
\nentitled to claim the amount of basic-pay that is payable for the
\nperiod of notice. The University is governed by its statutes and
\nOrdinances and it was incumbent upon the respondent to pay the amount
\nof notice pay. The University has taken a lenient view and directed
\nthe respondent to pay notice pay for a period of two months and
\ntwelve days only, considering the date on which the respondent
\ninformed the University regarding his appointment in M.S.University,
\nBaroda. Having paid an amount of Rs.6,000\/- towards notice pay for
\ntwo months and twelve days on 18.07.1996, and having joined at
\nM.S.University, Baroda, the respondent is not at all justified in
\ndemanding refund of this amount. The impugned judgment of the
\nTribunal, whereby the amount of notice pay has been directed to be
\nrefunded to the respondent is erroneous, as it has been passed
\nwithout taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the
\nOrdinance of the petitioner-University. The Tribunal has wrongly
\npermitted revival of the earlier application of the respondent, in
\nspite of unconditional withdrawal, and has passed the impugned order,
\nwithout proper appreciation of facts or law.  While passing the
\nimpugned order, the Tribunal has completely lost sight of the fact
\nthat demand of notice pay is the right of the employer, in the event
\nthat the employee leaves its services without giving adequate notice.
\nThe employer has to make arrangements to fill up the vacancy created
\nby the employee immediately in order to run its affairs. In any case,
\nthe relevant provisions of the Ordinance are clear and explicit and
\nthe action of the petitioner-University, being in accordance with the
\nsaid Ordinance, cannot be faulted. There is no justification for
\nordering refund of notice pay by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)The
\nlien of the respondent was terminated with effect from 10.11.1997, as
\nit was evident from the request of the respondent for transfer of the
\namount of GPF to M.S.University, Baroda, that he did not intend to
\nreturn to the petitioner-University. The petitioner-University had
\nspecifically sought clarification from the respondent to the effect
\nwhether he is not desirous of returning to the petitioner-University
\nand wants his lien to be terminated. The request of the respondent
\nfor transfer of GPF was finally acceded to by the
\npetitioner-University. The lien of the respondent was terminated, and
\nhe was informed accordingly. It is not the case of the respondent
\nthat he wanted to return to the petitioner-University. He has himself
\ndemanded transfer of the GPF amount. Had the respondent wanted to
\nreturn during the period of lien, the petitioner-University was bound
\nto accommodate him. The respondent was confirmed in M.S.University,
\nBaroda, on 30.05.1998, as University Engineer. On that date, the lien
\nof the respondent has automatically came to an end. The
\npetitioner-University has terminated the lien of the respondent under
\nthe provisions of Section 11, sub-section 4, of the Bhavnagar
\nUniversity Act, 1978 (“the Act” for short) whereby the
\nVice Chancellor has been granted powers to take immediate action in
\ncase of an emergency. The said action has been ratified by the
\nExecutive Council of the petitioner-University. The Tribunal fell
\ninto error in not taking into consideration the fact that the lien of
\nthe respondent in the petitioner-University had automatically come to
\nan end, on his confirmation at M.S.University, Baroda.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)It
\nis also not the case of the respondent at any stage that prejudice
\nhas been caused to him by termination of lien. In fact, no prejudice
\nhas been caused to respondent, who stood confirmed at M.S.University
\non 30.05.1998. This aspect has been ignored and overlooked by the
\nTribunal while passing the impugned judgment. The action of the
\npetitioner-University is bona fide, and in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)The
\nTribunal could not have examined the matter for award of damages\/
\ncompensation  as has been done by it, on the erroneous premise that
\nit is a Court of equity. The Tribunal has limited jurisdiction which
\nis specifically delineated in Section 8 of the Gujarat University
\nService Tribunal Act, 1983 (“the Service Tribunal Act”
\nfor short). The impugned judgment makes it clear that the Tribunal
\nhas awarded damages\/compensation to the respondent for the alleged
\nmental agony that he suffered, though in the form of costs. As the
\nTribunal has limited jurisdiction, this could not have been done, and
\nresultantly, the direction to the petitioner-University to deposit an
\namount of Rs.14,000\/- deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tThe
\nTribunal has proceeded on a wrong premise that the action of the Vice
\nChancellor in terminating the lien of the respondent has not been
\nratified by the Executive Council. The respondent has been informed
\nregarding termination of lien. The said action has been ratified by
\nthe Executive Council in its meeting on 21.11.1997 when all the
\nissues pertaining to the respondent were discussed in detail.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)The
\nTribunal has erroneously linked the issues of notice pay and lien,
\nwhich have no relation to each other and has passed the impugned
\norder by making certain observations regarding the Vice Chancellor of
\nthe petitioner-University and the alleged conduct of the University,
\nwhich are not at all warranted, on the facts and in the circumstances
\nof the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tOpposing
\n\tthe petition, Mr.N.K.Ojha, the respondent party-in-person, has made
\n\tdetailed submissions, the gist of which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
I.\tThe
\nrespondent was not supposed to pay notice pay to the
\npetitioner-University as his lien was sanctioned. As the said lien
\nwas  prematurely terminated he is entitled to claim refund of notice
\npay. The Tribunal has rightly ordered the refund of notice pay
\nequivalent to 48 days and awarded Rs.14,000\/- as costs, damages and
\ncompensation as the respondent has been running from pillar to post,
\nfor the past twelve years.\n<\/p>\n
II.\tLien
\nwas granted with effect from 19.07.1996 for two years and was wrongly
\nterminated on 10.11.1997 by the Vice Chancellor of the
\npetitioner-University. This action was not brought to the notice of
\nthe Executive Council. Initially, the post occupied by the respondent
\nin the petitioner-University, which fell vacant on his joining
\nM.S.University, was advertised as a lien post; however, in the
\nsubsequent advertisement, the word `lien’ was missing. The new
\nincumbent was appointed on 10.10.1997 and confirmed on 21.10.1997,
\nwhen the lien of the respondent was terminated.\n<\/p>\n
III.There
\nwas no justification for exercise of emergency powers under Section
\n11(4)(a) of the Act by the Vice Chancellor, for terminating the lien
\nof the respondent, as no emergent situation existed for invocation of
\nsuch powers. There is no document on record to show that the decision
\nto terminate the lien by the Vice Chancellor was brought to the
\nnotice of the Executive Council.  The respondent has not been
\ninformed regarding termination of his lien, otherwise, he would have
\napproached the Executive Council within the stipulated period of
\ntime. Therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural
\njustice. There is also flagrant violation of the Act by the
\npetitioner-University; for which reason, the respondent is engaged in
\nlitigation with the University for the last twelve years. Moreover,
\nthe respondent has faced a great deal of harassment, inconvenience,
\npain and mental agony due to premature termination of lien by the
\npetitioner-University.\n<\/p>\n
IV.\tThe
\npetitioner-University has tried to mislead the Tribunal and now it is
\ntrying to mislead this Court, as well.  A false affidavit has been
\nfiled by the University by stating that the action of termination of
\nlien by the Vice Chancellor was brought to the notice of the
\nExecutive Council. The action of the University in terminating the
\nlien of the respondent is, therefore, null and void because the
\nrelevant provisions of the Act have not been followed, inasmuch as
\nthere was no emergency to terminate the lien of the respondent, and
\nthe matter has not been reported to the Executive Council. Therefore,
\nthe respondent is entitled for refund of notice pay  and costs as has
\nbeen rightly ordered, by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
V.\tWhen
\nthe lien of the respondent was terminated, he was still not confirmed
\nin M.S.University, Baroda, therefore, prejudice has been caused to
\nhim. The respondent had requested for transfer of GPF to
\nM.S.University from the petitioner-University because he had still
\nnot made up his mind. However, the respondent was confirmed in
\nM.S.University on 30.05.1998.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\n\thave heard Mr.Mitul K.Shelat, learned advocate for the petitioner
\n\tand Mr.N.K.Ojha, respondent party-in-person, at length and in great
\n\tdetail, perused the averments made in the petition as well as the
\n\tdocuments on record.\n<\/p>\n
\tRegarding
\n\tthe issue of notice pay, the provisions of clause (C) of Rule 8 of
\n\tOrdinance 89 of the petitioner-University are relevant, and are
\n\treproduced hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(C)\tNo
\n\temployee shall leave the employment of the college without giving
\n\tthree months notice if he is confirmed or one months notice if he is
\n\ton probation. In case, however, the employee does not given the
\n\trequired notice the management will be entitled to claim from him an
\n\tamount not exceeding the amount of basic pay as may be payable to
\n\thim for the period of notice. Shorter notice than above may be
\n\taccepted by the management at its discretion.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\n\tis clear from this provision, an employee who does not give three
\n\tmonths’ notice before leaving the employment of the University, is
\n\tbound to pay an amount not exceeding the amount of basic pay as may
\n\tbe payable to him for the period of notice, to the University.
\n\tDiscretion has been vested in the University to accept a shorter
\n\tperiod of notice than the period of three months. In the present
\n\tcase, the respondent has, by letter dated 29.06.1996, requested the
\n\tUniversity for waiver of notice pay. When an employee leaves the
\n\temployment of the employer without adequate notice, the employer is
\n\tput to some inconvenience due to the sudden vacancy. The concept of
\n\tnotice pay relates to the act of leaving services by the employee
\n\tall of a sudden, without adequate notice. In order to indemnify the
\n\tloss suffered by the employer and as a token of mitigation of the
\n\tinconvenience caused due to the unexpected act of leaving,  it is
\n\tincumbent upon the employee to pay the amount of notice pay, as
\n\tstipulated. In the present case, the Ordinance of the
\n\tpetitioner-University specifically provides for payment of notice
\n\tpay by the employee. The respondent was required to give three
\n\tmonths’ notice before leaving the services of the
\n\tpetitioner-University. However, he gave only eighteen days’ notice.
\n\tTherefore, eighteen days’ salary was not deducted and he was
\n\tdirected to deposit an amount of Rs.6,000\/- as notice pay, equal to
\n\tsalary for two months and twelve days. The respondent did so on
\n\t18.07.1996.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere
\n\tis no provision in the Ordinance for claiming refund of notice pay.
\n\tThe Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, has totally overlooked and
\n\tignored the provisions of clause (C) of Rule 8 of Ordinance 89,
\n\twhich deals with notice pay, and in doing so it has arrived at an
\n\terroneous conclusion, contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom
\n\tperusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, it is evident that
\n\tthe Tribunal has wrongly linked the issue of notice pay to the issue
\n\tof termination of lien.  It was incumbent upon the respondent to pay
\n\tnotice pay on leaving the services of the petitioner-University as
\n\tper provisions of the Ordinance. This act is prior in point of time
\n\tthan termination of lien and has no connection with it. The
\n\tobligation of paying notice pay arises due to leaving of services
\n\twithout adequate notice. As the respondent has left the services of
\n\tthe petitioner-University without giving three months’ prior notice
\n\tas required by Clause (C) of Rule 8 of Ordinance 89, the provisions
\n\tthereof apply squarely to him and no fault can be found with the
\n\tUniversity in demanding notice pay from him. The issue of notice pay
\n\tcannot be linked with termination of lien, as has been done by the
\n\tTribunal in the impugned judgment. The direction of the Tribunal to
\n\tthe petitioner-University to refund the amount of notice pay is,
\n\ttherefore, wholly justified.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\torder to understand the concept of lien, it would be helpful to
\n\tadvert to the relevant legal position in this regard. In Ramlal
\n\tKhurana (Dead) By LRs. v. State of Punjab and Others<\/a> – (1989)4
\n\tSCC 99,
\n\tit has been held that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“8.\t…….Lien
\n\tis not a word of art. It just connotes the right of a civil servant
\n\tto hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. Generally
\n\twhen a person with a lien
\n\tagainst a post is appointed substantively to another post, he
\n\tacquires a lien against the latter post. Then the lien against his
\n\tprevious post automatically disappears. The principle being that no
\n\tgovernment servant can have simultaneously two liens against two
\n\tposts in two different cadres. It is well accepted
\n\tprinciple of service jurisprudence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tState of Rajasthan And Another v. S.N.Tiwari And Others –
\n\t(2009)4 SCC 700,
\n\tthe Supreme Court has held:\n<\/p>\n
\t“17.\tIt
\n\tis very well settled that when a person with a lien against the post
\n\tis  appointed substantively to another post, only then he acquires a
\n\tlien against the latter post. Then and then alone the lien against
\n\tthe previous post disappears. Lien connotes the right of a civil
\n\tservant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. The
\n\tlien of a government employee over the previous post ends if he is
\n\tappointed to another permanent post on permanent basis. In such a
\n\tcase the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent post. It
\n\tmay not require a formal termination of lien over the previous
\n\tpermanent post.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.\tThis
\n\tCourt in Ramlal Khurana v. State of Punjab [(1989)4 SCC 99] observed
\n\tthat: (SCC p.102, para 8)<\/p>\n
\t“”8.\t…Lien
\n\tis not a word of art. It just connotes the right of a civil servant
\n\tto hold the post substantively to which he is appointed.””\n<\/p>\n
\t19.\tThe
\n\tterm “lien” comes from the Latin term “ligament”
\n\tmeaning “binding”. The meaning of lien in service law is
\n\tdifferent from other meanings in the context of contract, common
\n\tlaw, equity, etc. The lien of a government employee in service law
\n\tis the right of the government employee to hold a permanent post
\n\tsubstantively to which he has been permanently appointed. (See
\n\tTriveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P.<\/a> – 1992 Supp(1) SCC 524)”\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom
\n\tthe above enunciation of law, it is clear that when a person with a
\n\tlien against a post is substantively appointed to another post, the
\n\tlien that he held with regard to his former post disappears, and he
\n\tacquires a lien against the latter post. In the present case, the
\n\tpetitioner-University permitted the respondent to retain lien for
\n\ttwo years with effect from 18.07.1996 i.e. upto 19.07.1998. The
\n\trespondent joined M.S.University, Baroda, on 19.07.1996. (24.06.1996
\n\tas per the arguments in rejoinder and 19.07.1996 as per the
\n\tpetition). The lien of the respondent was terminated on 10.11.1997.
\n\tThe respondent was confirmed as University Engineer in
\n\tM.S.University on 30.05.1998. It is an admitted position that the
\n\trespondent wrote letter dated 20.08.1997 to the
\n\tpetitioner-University, requesting that his GPF be transferred to
\n\tM.S.University, Baroda. This communication is annexed as Annexure-M
\n\tto the reply filed by the respondent. In response thereto, by letter
\n\tdated 29.09.1997, the petitioner-University informed the respondent
\n\tthat he had lien for a period of two years from 19.07.1996 and only
\n\tif he was not desirous of returning to the petitioner-University,
\n\tcould the amount of GPF be transferred to M.S.University, as per
\n\tRules. The respondent was specifically asked to clarify whether he
\n\tis desirous of returning to the petitioner-University, or not. There
\n\tis nothing on record to indicate what clarification, if any, was
\n\tgiven by the respondent. Finally, the amount of GPF of the
\n\trespondent was transferred to M.S.University, Baroda, as per his
\n\trequest. It is not the case of the respondent that he desired to
\n\treturn to the petitioner-University at any stage. The action of the
\n\tpetitioner-University in terminating the lien of the respondent
\n\tprematurely, appears to have been motivated by his request for
\n\ttransfer of his amount of GPF to M.S.University, Baroda. Had the
\n\trespondent desired to return to petitioner-University, he could have
\n\tmade such a request upto 30.05.1998 (the date on which he was
\n\tconfirmed at M.S.University). At no stage has the respondent
\n\tapproached the petitioner-University with such a request. From this,
\n\tit is clear that he had no intention of returning to the
\n\tpetitioner-University. Upon his confirmation at M.S.University on
\n\t30.05.1998,  the respondent automatically lost his lien in the
\n\tpetitioner-University and acquired lien at M.S.University.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tcontention of the respondent that the petitioner-University did not
\n\tinform him regarding termination of lien is not borne out from the
\n\trecord. Communication dated 26.11.1997 addressed by the
\n\tpetitioner-University to the respondent (annexed as Annexure-S to
\n\tthe reply filed by the respondent) shows that the respondent has
\n\tbeen informed that his lien has been terminated on 10.11.1997. The
\n\trespondent has further submitted that had he been informed that his
\n\tlien was terminated by the Vice Chancellor, in exercise of
\n\tprovisions under  the provisions of Section 11, sub-section 4 of the
\n\tBhavnagar Universities Act, 1978, he could have approached the
\n\tExecutive Council. This submission carries no weight, as it was open
\n\tto him to approach the Executive Council, in any case, had he been
\n\taggrieved by such termination, at the relevant point of time.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\taction of the petitioner-University in terminating the lien of the
\n\trespondent prematurely can, at the most, be termed to be irregular,
\n\tthough it appears to be motivated by the demand of the respondent
\n\tfor transfer of his GPF amount. In the circumstances of the case,
\n\tthe said action would not amount to an illegality or a justification
\n\tfor refund of notice pay and imposition of costs on the
\n\tpetitioner-University in the absence of any material on record to
\n\tshow that prejudice has been caused to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tRegarding
\n\tthe contention raised by the respondent that the decision of the
\n\tVice Chancellor in terminating his lien in exercise of powers under
\n\tsection 11(4)(a) of the Act has not been ratified by the Executive
\n\tCouncil, there is a specific averment in the affidavit-in-rejoinder
\n\tthat the Executive Council of the petitioner-University discussed
\n\tthe case of the respondent in detail in its meeting held on
\n\t21.12.1998. The extract of the Minutes of the meeting of the
\n\tExecutive Council dated 21.12.1998 have been annexed at running
\n\tpages 147 to 149. The Minutes show that a detailed discussion
\n\tregarding all the issues arising in the case of the respondent has
\n\ttaken place at the said meeting.  This shows that the Executive
\n\tCouncil had been apprised of all issues pertaining to the case of
\n\tthe respondent. Merely because there is no specific mention of lien,
\n\tit cannot be assumed that the Executive Council was unaware of the
\n\tdecision in this regard. The contention of the respondent that a
\n\tfalse affidavit has been filed by the petitioner-University cannot
\n\tbe accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tprovisions of Section 11 of the Act confer discretion upon the Vice
\n\tChancellor to take immediate action, if he finds that there are
\n\treasonable grounds to believe that an emergent situation has arisen,
\n\trequiring such action to be taken. It is for the Vice Chancellor to
\n\tdecide whether, or not, to take such action. The respondent cannot
\n\ttake it upon himself to decide whether such power should have been
\n\tused or not. The Vice Chancellor of the petitioner-University has
\n\tacted within the bounds of discretion vested in him as per the
\n\tSection and there is evidence to show that the case of the
\n\trespondent was placed before the Executive Council and all issues
\n\tpertaining to the same were discussed. It cannot, therefore, be said
\n\tthat there is a violation of the provisions of the Act, rendering
\n\tthe decision of termination of lien invalid.\n<\/p>\n
\tRegarding
\n\tthe submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-University
\n\tthat the Tribunal has wrongly assumed “equity jurisdiction”
\n\twhile imposing compensation\/ damages\/ costs upon the
\n\tpetitioner-University, the provisions of Section 8 of the Gujarat
\n\tUniversity Service Tribunal Act, 1983, would clarify matter. It
\n\treads as below:\n<\/p>\n
\t“8.\tDispute
\n\tto be decided by Tribunal – Where there is any dispute between
\n\tthe University and any University employee, which is connected with
\n\tthe conditions of service of such University employee, the
\n\tUniversity or, as the case may be, the University employee may make
\n\tan application to the Tribunal for the decision of the dispute.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tTribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute between the
\n\tUniversity and any University employee, which is connected with the
\n\tconditions of service of such University employee. The issues of
\n\tnotice pay and lien would fall within the jurisdiction of the
\n\tTribunal as they relate to conditions of service of an employee of
\n\tthe University. The Tribunal appears to have assumed the
\n\tjurisdiction of a Court of equity, as a reading of paragraph-39 of
\n\tthe judgment indicates, and has entered into a discussion regarding
\n\tdamages and compensation payable to the respondent for “mental
\n\tagony” suffered by him. However, ultimately it has imposed
\n\tcosts of Rs.14,000\/- upon the petitioner-University to be recovered
\n\tfrom its erring employees. As has already been stated hereinabove,
\n\tthere is no justification for doing so, therefore, it should suffice
\n\tthat this direction is set aside. There is no further requirement of
\n\telaborating on the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal as it is
\n\tnot relevant to the issues involved in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tfinding of the Tribunal that the principles of natural justice have
\n\tbeen violated while terminating the lien of the respondent do not
\n\tappear to be correct as the respondent himself has requested for
\n\ttransfer of GPF amount to M.S.University, Baroda, and was asked by
\n\tthe petitioner-University to clarify whether he wanted to return to
\n\tthe said University, or not. He was also informed regarding the
\n\ttermination of lien by the petitioner-University. In the
\n\tcircumstances, there is no breach of the principles of natural
\n\tjustice by the petitioner-University.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of the above discussion and for the above-stated reasons, the
\n\tpetition succeeds. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated
\n\t11.08.1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
\n\tThere shall be no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.Abhilasha
\nKumari, J.)<\/p>\n
(sunil)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/10269\/1999 25\/ 25 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10269 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010 - 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\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-30T06:07:10+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\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T06:07:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4437,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T06:07:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010 - 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\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-30T06:07:10+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\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T06:07:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010"},"wordCount":4437,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010","name":"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T06:07:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhavnagar-vs-n-on-23-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhavnagar vs N on 23 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/123096","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=123096"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123096\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}