{"id":124970,"date":"2009-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-15T11:29:05","modified_gmt":"2018-12-15T05:59:05","slug":"rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n            HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR       \n\n\n               WRIT PETITION  No 3458 of 2004\n\n\n\n                   Rakesh   Prasad  Yadaw\n                                    ...Petitioners\n\n                       VERSUS\n\n\n               1)  Union  of  India\n\n                2)  State  of Chhattisgarh\n\n                3)  State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n                4)  District  Education   Officer\n                                         ...Respondents<\/pre>\n<p>!               Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>^               Shri A.K.Barik, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri S.K.Beriwal<br \/>\n                Standing Counsel for the Union of India.<br \/>\n                Shri Rakesh Jha, Government Advocate for the State\/respondent No.2 and 4.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n               Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J\n\n\n\n               Dated: 10\/02\/2009\n\n\n:               Judgement\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>        WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226\/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA         <\/p>\n<p>                         ORAL ORDER<br \/>\n           (Passed on 10th day of  February, 2009)<\/p>\n<p>  1.   By  this  petition, the petitioner seeks  a  writ  of<\/p>\n<p>       mandamus directing the respondents to provide compassionate<\/p>\n<p>       appointment to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>  2.   The  facts,  in  brief, are that the  father  of  the<\/p>\n<p>       petitioner namely Rajendra Prasad Yadaw was working as Lower<\/p>\n<p>       Division Teacher at Government Higher Secondary School,<\/p>\n<p>       Sarangarh.  Rajendra Prasad Yadaw died on  31.01.1996<\/p>\n<p>       (Annexure P\/1) in harness. After his death, the son i.e. the<\/p>\n<p>       petitioner made an application and thereafter certain<\/p>\n<p>       reminders and also a revised application (Annexure P\/2 and<\/p>\n<p>       P\/3) to the respondents for compassionate appointment. The<\/p>\n<p>       grievance  of the petitioner is that till  date,  the<\/p>\n<p>       petitioner has not been granted compassionate appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The respondents have even not decided the representations<\/p>\n<p>       and applications made by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>  3.   Be   that  as  it  may,  it  is  well  settled   that<\/p>\n<p>       compassionate appointment is not in accordance with the<\/p>\n<p>       constitutional scheme of employment and is a back-door<\/p>\n<p>       entry. Moreover, it is now well settled that appointment on<\/p>\n<p>       compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The grant of compassionate appointment is to provide succor<\/p>\n<p>       and relief to the dependent members who had become penurious<\/p>\n<p>       on  the death of the bread earner of the family.  The<\/p>\n<p>       petitioner has survived since the year 1996 till 2001<\/p>\n<p>       without any assistance from any source.\n<\/p>\n<p>  4.   On  perusal  of  the  records, it  appears  that  the<\/p>\n<p>       petitioner  has  made  an application  for  grant  of<\/p>\n<p>       compassionate appointment for the first time on 11.7.2001<\/p>\n<p>       i.e. after a period of about 5 + years of the date of death<\/p>\n<p>       of his father. There is considerable delay of 5 +  years on<\/p>\n<p>       the  part of the petitioner for seeking compassionate<\/p>\n<p>       appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>  5.   The  Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in State of J&amp;K and others<\/p>\n<p>       Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir1, in para 11 regarding delay in seeking<\/p>\n<p>       compassionate appointment held as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;Once  it  is  proved that  inspite  of  the<br \/>\n            death   of   the  breadwinner,  the   family<br \/>\n            survived  and  substantial period  is  over,<br \/>\n            there  is no necessity to say &#8220;good-bye&#8221;  to<br \/>\n            the  normal rule of appointment and to  show<br \/>\n            favour  to  one at the cost of the  interest<br \/>\n            of  several  others ignoring the mandate  of<br \/>\n            Article 14 of the Constitution.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  6.   Further, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court, in <a href=\"\/doc\/1018327\/\">Commissioner of<\/p>\n<p>       Public Instructions and others vs. K.R. Vishwanath2,<\/a> while<\/p>\n<p>       dealing with the question of the object of the compassionate<\/p>\n<p>       appointment, observed as   under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;9.  As was observed in <a href=\"\/doc\/37068\/\">State of Haryana  v.<br \/>\n          Rani  Devi1,<\/a> it need not be pointed out that<br \/>\n          the    claim   of   person   concerned   for<br \/>\n          appointment on compassionate ground is based<br \/>\n          on the premises that he was dependant on the<br \/>\n          deceased   employee.  Strictly  this   claim<br \/>\n          cannot  be  upheld  on  the  touchstone   of<br \/>\n          Articles  14  or  16  of  the  Constitution.<br \/>\n          However,   such   claim  is  considered   as<br \/>\n          reasonable and permissible on the  basis  of<br \/>\n          sudden  crisis  occurring in the  family  of<br \/>\n          such  employee who has served the State  and<br \/>\n          dies  while in service. That is  why  it  is<br \/>\n          necessary  for  the  authorities  to   frame<br \/>\n          rules,   regulations  or   to   issue   such<br \/>\n          administrative orders which  can  stand  the<br \/>\n          test  of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment  on<br \/>\n          compassionate ground cannot be claimed as  a<br \/>\n          matter   of  right.  Die-in-harness   scheme<br \/>\n          cannot  be made applicable to all  types  of<br \/>\n          posts  irrespective of the nature of service<br \/>\n          rendered by the deceased employee.  In  Rani<br \/>\n          Devi case1 it was held that scheme regarding<br \/>\n          appointment  on  compassionate   ground   if<br \/>\n          extended  to all types of casual or  ad  hoc<br \/>\n          employees  including  those  who  worked  as<br \/>\n          apprentices    cannot   be   justified    on<br \/>\n          constitutional grounds. <a href=\"\/doc\/1398969\/\">In LIC of  India  v.<br \/>\n          Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar2<\/a> it was pointed out<br \/>\n          that    High   Courts   and   Administrative<br \/>\n          Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled<br \/>\n          by   sympathetic  considerations   to   make<br \/>\n          appointments  on compassionate grounds  when<br \/>\n          the regulations framed in respect thereof do<br \/>\n          not     cover    and    contemplates    such<br \/>\n          appointments.  It was noted in  Umesh  Kumar<br \/>\n          Nagpal  v. State of Haryana3 that as a  rule<br \/>\n          in public service appointment should be made<br \/>\n          strictly on the basis of open invitation  of<br \/>\n          applications  and merit. The appointment  on<br \/>\n          compassionate  ground is not another  source<br \/>\n          of  recruitment but merely an  exception  to<br \/>\n          the   aforesaid  requirement   taking   into<br \/>\n          consideration  the  fact  of  the  death  of<br \/>\n          employee while in service leaving his family<br \/>\n          without  any  means of livelihood.  In  such<br \/>\n          cases the object is to enable the family  to<br \/>\n          get  over sudden financial crisis. But  such<br \/>\n          appointments on compassionate ground have to<br \/>\n          be   made  in  accordance  with  the  rules,<br \/>\n          regulations  or administrative  instructions<br \/>\n          taking   into  consideration  the  financial<br \/>\n          condition of the family of the deceased.&#8221;<br \/>\n          &#8220;10.       <a href=\"\/doc\/571995\/\">In  Sushma  Gosain  v.  Union  of<br \/>\n          India4<\/a> it was observed that in all claims of<br \/>\n          appointment on compassionate grounds,  there<br \/>\n          should not be any delay in appointment.  The<br \/>\n          purpose   of   providing   appointment    on<br \/>\n          compassionate  ground  is  to  mitigate  the<br \/>\n          hardship due to death of the bread-earner in<br \/>\n          the   family.   Such  appointments   should,<br \/>\n          therefore, be provided immediately to redeem<br \/>\n          the  family in distress. The fact  that  the<br \/>\n          ward was a minor at the time of death of his<br \/>\n          father  is  no  ground,  unless  the  scheme<br \/>\n          itself  envisage specifically otherwise,  to<br \/>\n          state that as and when such minor becomes  a<br \/>\n          major  he can be appointed without any  time<br \/>\n          consciousness or limit. The above  view  was<br \/>\n          reiterated in <a href=\"\/doc\/934844\/\">Phoolwati v. Union  of  India5<br \/>\n          and  Union  of India<\/a> v. <a href=\"\/doc\/327850\/\">Bhagwan  Singh6.  In<br \/>\n          Director   of   Education   (Secondary)   v.<br \/>\n          Pushpendra Kumar7,<\/a> it was observed  that  in<br \/>\n          matter  of  compassionate appointment  there<br \/>\n          cannot be insistence for a particular  post.<br \/>\n          Out of purely humanitarian consideration and<br \/>\n          having  regard to the fact that unless  some<br \/>\n          source  of livelihood is provided the family<br \/>\n          would  not  be able to make both ends  meet,<br \/>\n          provisions  are made for giving  appointment<br \/>\n          to one of the dependants of the deceased who<br \/>\n          may  be eligible for appointment. Care  has,<br \/>\n          however,  to  be  taken that  provision  for<br \/>\n          ground of compassionate employment which  is<br \/>\n          in the nature of an exception to the general<br \/>\n          provisions  does not unduly  interfere  with<br \/>\n          the  right  of those other persons  who  are<br \/>\n          eligible for appointment to seek appointment<br \/>\n          against  the  post  which  would  have  been<br \/>\n          available,  but  for the provision  enabling<br \/>\n          appointment   being  made  on  compassionate<br \/>\n          grounds  of  the dependant of  the  deceased<br \/>\n          employee.   As  it  is  in  the  nature   of<br \/>\n          exception  to  the  general  provisions   it<br \/>\n          cannot substitute the provision to which  it<br \/>\n          is an exception and thereby nullify the main<br \/>\n          provision  by  taking  away  completely  the<br \/>\n          right conferred by the main provision.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>  7.   It  is thus clear from the decisions cited above that<\/p>\n<p>       the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment by<\/p>\n<p>       virtue of a right of inheritance. Even otherwise, the<\/p>\n<p>       considerable delay of 5 + years on the  part  of  the<\/p>\n<p>       petitioner  for seeking compassionate appointment  is<\/p>\n<p>       unsustainable as being unexplained.\n<\/p>\n<p>  8.   For  the  reasons stated hereinabove,  this  petition<\/p>\n<p>       deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to<\/p>\n<p>       costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>  9.   Consequently,  M(W)P  No.  3027\/2004,   also   stands<\/p>\n<p>       dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>JUDGE  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No 3458 of 2004 Rakesh Prasad Yadaw &#8230;Petitioners VERSUS 1) Union of India 2) State of Chhattisgarh 3) State of Madhya Pradesh 4) District Education Officer &#8230;Respondents ! Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-15T05:59:05+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-15T05:59:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1191,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-15T05:59:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-15T05:59:05+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-15T05:59:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009"},"wordCount":1191,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009","name":"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-15T05:59:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-prasad-yadaw-vs-union-of-india-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh Prasad Yadaw vs ) Union Of India on 10 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/124970","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=124970"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124970\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}