{"id":134729,"date":"1979-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979"},"modified":"2018-07-31T21:51:23","modified_gmt":"2018-07-31T16:21:23","slug":"union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 959, \t\t 1980 SCR (2)1200<\/div>\n
Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nE. S. SOUNDARAJAN ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/04\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  959\t\t  1980 SCR  (2)1200\n 1980 SCC  (3) 125\n\n\nACT:\n     Services-Railway  Service-Two   categories\t  Commercial\nClerks and  Assistant  Station\tMasters\/Station\t Masters-Pay\nscales substantially  similar but  higher limit\t for ASM\/SM-\nCommercial  Clerks  becoming  ASM\/SM-Revision  of  setup  by\nGovernment  to\t provide  opportunity\tfor  increment\t for\nCommercial  Clerks  -Commercial\t Clerks\t who  became  ASM\/SM\nsustaining  loss   in  pay-Validity  and  permissibility  of\nrevision.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  MSM\tRailway,  one\tof  several  British  Indian\nCompanies, was\tmerged in the Indian Railways. The employees\nunder the MSM Railway, who constituted the respondents, fell\nin two\tcategories namely  Commercial Clerks  and  Assistant\nStation\t Masters\/Station  Masters.  The\t pay-scales  at\t the\nvarious grades\twere substantially  similar, although at the\nhigher levels  the Assistant Station Masters\/Station Masters\nhad higher  scales of  pay. In\t1930 and  thereafter several\nCommercial Clerks  went over  and became  Assistant  Station\nMasters\/Station Masters\t and to\t some  extent  they  enjoyed\ncertain advantages  on this score, and continued to work out\ntheir respective  fortunes in  the administrative service on\nthe basis  of the  then rules  and scales  of pay. As 90 per\ncent of\t these posts  were occupied  by the lowest category,\nand there  was long stagnation the appellant, Union of India\naround 1956  felt that\tthere was  need for  revision of the\nset-up and with a view to give more relief and opportunities\nfor increments\tto the\tCommercial Clerks,  revised the\t pay\nscales, which was called the New Deal. When the New Deal was\nbrought in  some Assistant  Station Masters\/Station  Masters\nfound that  although they  were senior to certain Commercial\nClerks at  the early stages, their pay became less than that\nof Commercial Clerks.\n     Being aggrieved,  they agitated their grievances before\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court. That High Court took the view\nthat Commercial Clerks and ASM\/SM were substantially treated\nalike and  when certain\t disparities and emoluments arose on\naccount of  the New  Deal discrimination ensued. The special\nleave petitions\t to this  Court against\t this judgment\twere\ndismissed.\n     Certain employees\talso assailed  the New\tDeal in\t the\nMadras High Court and the High Court observed that though it\nwas not\t possible to  agree with  the  view  of\t the  Andhra\nPradesh High  Court it\thad  to\t be  followed  as  the\tsaid\ndecision had became final.\n     In the  appeals to\t this Court, it was argued on behalf\nof the\tappellant that\tthe Madras  High Court had expressly\ndissented from\tthis reasoning\tof the\tAndhra Pradesh\tHigh\nCourt and  contended that Commercial Clerk and ASMs\/SMs fall\ninto two  different categories\tand  on\t the  basis  of\t the\nrulings of  this Court\tthere  could  not  be  any  case  of\ndiscrimination\twhen   distinct\t categories   in  Government\nservice\t had  different\t treatment  in\tthe  course  of\t the\nservice, and  only such\t of the employees as had a chance of\ngoing up in emoluments or drawing increments attributable to\nthe New\t Deal could  claim the\tbenefits or advantages under\nthe decision  of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On behalf of\nthe respondents, it\n1201\nwas argued  that the  second decision  of the Andhra Pradesh\nHigh Court  was correct\t and that  the illustration given by\nthe High  Court graphically  to clarify\t its conclusion\t was\nrealistic and correct.\n^\n     HELD :  1.\t It  is\t not  possible\tto  agree  with\t the\nconclusion reached  by the Andhra Pradesh High Court so long\nas Commercial  Clerks and  ASMs\/SMs fall  into two different\ncategories. The\t well-established proposition  is that there\ncannot be a case of discrimination merely because fortuitous\ncircumstances arising  out of  some peculiar developments or\nsituations create  advantages or disadvantages for one group\nor the\tother although in the earlier stages they were, more\nor less\t alike. If  one class  has not\tbeen singled out for\nspecial treatment,  the\t mere  circumstances  of  advantages\naccruing to  one or  the other\tcannot result  in breach  of\nArticle 14 of the Constitution. [1204E-G]\n     Reserve Bank  of India v. N. C. Paliwal & Others<\/a> [1977]\n1 S.C.R. 377, referred to.\n     2. The  employees (ASM\/SMs)  who, had they continued as\nCommercial Clerks  would not  have  had\t any  increments  on\naccount of  the New Deal, could not claim such increments on\nthe basis  of the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court  decision. All\nthat the said decision sought to do was to see that ASMs\/SMs\nwere not prejudiced merely by leaving their earlier position\nas Commercial  Clerks. It  did not  put\t them  in  a  better\nposition than  they would  have, if  they had  continued  as\nCommercial Clerks. [1205H, 1206A]\n     3. The  emoluments that  the respondents in the appeals\nas well as the special leave petitions will draw will not be\naffected. Those not before the Court will not be entitled to\namelioratory relief. [1204G-H, 1205A]\n     4. The  Andhra Pradesh  decision will prevail while the\nlaw laid  down by  the said  decision will  stand set aside.\n[1205C].\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 481-
\n482 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t special leave\tfrom the  Judgment and Order
\ndated 9-1-1974\tof the\tMadras High  Court in Writ Petitions
\nNos. 84 and 1454 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n\t       Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 1977
\n     Appeals by\t special leave\tfrom the  Judgment and order
\ndated 27-8-1975\t of the\t Andhra Pradesh\t High Court  in W.P.
\nNos. 946\/74, 1484\/74, 3563\/74, 5084\/74 and 6739\/74.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n\t       Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 1977
\n     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 2-9-1974\tof the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No.
\n127\/74.\n<\/p>\n
1202<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t  Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4029 of 1977
\n     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  14-12-1976 of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 108\/76.\n<\/p>\n
     Soli J. Sorabjee Addl. Sol. Genl. for the Appellants in
\nCA Nos. 481-482 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     R. B.  Datar, E. C. Agarwala and Girish Chandra for the
\nPetitioners in SLP 4029\/77.\n<\/p>\n
     M. K. Ramamurthy and Ambrish Kumar for the Respondents.
\n     B. Kanta Rao for the Respondent in CA Nos. 416-420\/77.
\n     K. R. Choudhary for Respondents in SLP 4029\/1977.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KRISHNA IYER,  J. The  main appeal\t with which  we\t are
\nconcerned in  this batch of civil appeals (and special leave
\npetitions whose\t fate will  depend on  the decision  in\t the
\ncivil appeals)\tis one where a Railway employee successfully
\nchallenged the\trefusal to  pay certain\t emoluments  by\t the
\nUnion of  India in  the Madras High Court. His writ petition
\nin the\tMadras High  Court was in the wake of similar one in
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court a few years prior thereto. The
\ndecision of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court had become final,
\nespecially because  the special\t leave petition filed by the
\nUnion of  India challenging  it had  been dismissed  by this
\nCourt. The  Madras High Court considered the reasoning given
\nin the\tAndhra Pradesh\tdecision and was inclined to dissent
\nfrom  it,  but\tfelt  that  the\t consequences  of  divergent
\ndecisions in the two High Courts might lead to anomalise and
\nshould, therefore,  be avoided.\t The  High  Court  expressed
\nitself thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “With respect\t to the\t view of  the Andhra Pradesh
\n     High  Court,   we\tare   unable  to   agree  with\t it.
\n     …………………………………..\t  But\t the
\n     decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has created a
\n     peculiar situation.  The result of giving effect to it,
\n     as the  Department is  bound to  give  effect  to\tthat
\n     judgment which  has become final is that employees like
\n     the petitioners  in the  Railway service  in the Andhra
\n     Pradesh Area  will\t be  treated  differently  from\t the
\n     petitioners, who  are in  every  way  similar  to\tthem
\n     except for\t the region in which they happen to work, in
\n     the matter of pay-scales and other matters.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1203<\/span><\/p>\n
Having regard  to this\todd potential  consequence, the High
\nCourt of  Madras fell  in line\twith the Andhra Pradesh High
\nCourt and upheld the writ petitioners’ claim.\n<\/p>\n
     A few  facts, minimally  necessary to bring out the two
\nquestions of  law urged\t before us by the aggrieved Union of
\nIndia, may  now be  narrated. We  are concerned with the MSM
\nRailway, one of those British Indian companies, since merged
\nin the\tIndian Railways.  The employees\t under the  MSM with
\nwhom we\t are  concerned\t fell  in  two\tcategories,  namely,
\nCommercial  Clerks  and\t Assistant  Station  Masters\/Station
\nMasters. Their\tpay scales,  at\t the  various  grades,\twere
\nsubstantially similar  although at  the\t higher\t levels\t the
\nAssistant Station  Masters\/Station Masters had higher scales
\nof pay.\t It was\t found at  the\tlowest\tlevels\tin  the\t two
\ncategories of  posts, there was long stagnation since around
\n90 per\tcent of\t these posts  were occupied  by\t the  lowest
\ncategories. The Union of India, around 1956, felt that there
\nwas need for revision of this set-up and with a view to give
\nmore  relief   and  opportunities   for\t increments  to\t the
\nCommercial Clerks  at the  most congested  levels,  produced
\nwhat has been called the New Deal. We may make it clear that
\nthe New Deal covered not merely Commercial Clerks and Asstt.
\nStation Masters\t and Station  Masters but  also\t applied  to
\nother categories  in the  Railway  service.  The  particular
\nproblem\t which\t confronts  the\t Court\tnow  alone  need  be
\nmentioned.  That  is  why  we  are  focussing  attention  on
\nCommercial Clerks and ASM\/SMs.\n<\/p>\n
     Way back  in 1930\tand from then on, several Commercial
\nClerks went  over and  became Asstt. Station Masters\/Station
\nMasters and  to some  extent they enjoyed certain advantages
\non this\t score. They  continued to work out their respective
\nfortunes in  the administrative\t service on the basis of the
\nthen rules and scales of pay. When in 1956, the New Deal was
\nbrought in some Asstt. Station Masters\/Station Masters found
\nthat although  they were senior to certain Commercial Clerks
\nat the\tearly stages,  their pay  became less  than then  of
\nCommercial Clerks.  This, according  to\t them,\twas  unequal
\ntreatment of  equals. It  was on  this grievance that with a
\nconstitutional veneer  some of\tthose employees moved a writ
\npetition in  the Andhra\t Pradesh High Court. That High Court
\ntook the  view, right  or wrong\t that Commercial  Clerks and
\nASMs\/SMs were  substantially treated  alike and when certain
\ndisparities in\temoluments arose on account of the New Deal,
\ndiscrimination ensued.\tOn the\tbasis of this logic the High
\nCourt directed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and
\n     the respondents  are directed  to fix  the pay  of\t the
\n     petitioners in  their present  cadre so  as not be less
\n     than the  pay they would have drawn if they had been in
\n     the cadre of Commercial
\n1204<\/span>
\n\t  Clerks  from\twhich  they  were  promoted,  to  be
\n     effective from  the date  of the  implementation of the
\n     New  Deal.\t  The  petitioners  will  get  their  costs.
\n     Advocate’s fee  Rs. 250\/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty
\n     only). One set.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for
\nthe Union  of India,  pointed out that the Madras High Court
\nexpressly  dissented   from  this   reasoning  and   further
\ncontended before us that Commercial Clerks and ASMs\/SMs fall
\ninto two  different categories\tand  on\t the  basis  of\t the
\nrulings of  this Court\tthere  could  not  be  any  case  of
\ndiscrimination\twhen   distinct\t categories   in  Government
\nservice\t had  different\t treatment  in\tthe  course  of\t the
\nservice. He  cited before  us a\t series\t of  decisions,\t the
\nearliest of which was reported in [1963] 3 SCR. 809 (at 817,
\n823 and\t 824). Indeed a series of other decisions right down
\nto [1977]  1 SCR  377 at  389 have  taken the view that even
\nthough two  categories may  be close  cousins they are quite
\ndistinct. There\t cannot\t be  any  discrimination  spelt\t out
\nmerely because\tthey have been dealt with in regard to their
\nsalary scales  or other\t conditions of\tservice differently.
\nEquality postulates  identity of  the class and once that is
\nabsent, discrimination\tcannot arise.  This argument appeals
\nto us  and we  are not prepared to agree with the conclusion
\nreached by  Andhra Pradesh  High Court so long as Commercial
\nClerks and  ASMs\/SMs fall  into two different categories-and
\nthis seems  to be plain and is contained in the narration of
\nfacts by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the Madras
\nHigh Court.  It is  equally important  to remember the well-
\nestablished proposition\t that there  cannot  be\t a  case  of
\ndiscrimination\tmerely\t because  fortuitous   circumstances
\narising out  of some  peculiar\tdevelopments  or  situations
\ncreate advantages  or disadvantages  for one  group  or\t the
\nother although\tin the\tearlier stages\tthey were,  more  or
\nless, alike.  If one  class has\t not been  singled  out\t for
\nspecial\t treatment,  the  mere\tcircumstance  of  advantages
\naccruing to  one or  the other\tcannot result  in breach  of
\nArticle 14  of the  Constitution. On  this basis  we  should
\nagree that  the reasoning of the High Court of Madras and so
\ndeclare the law correctly.\n<\/p>\n
     Indeed the Madras High Court has also gone this for but
\nhas declined  to reverse  the result  reached by  the Andhra
\nPradesh High  Court. We\t have earlier  extracted the  reason
\nwhich weighed with the Madras High Court in doing so. We too
\nfeel likewise.\tThe only  persons who  claim benefits on the
\nbasis of  the Andhra  Pradesh decision are those before this
\nCourt  at  the\tvarious\t civil\tappeals\t and  special  leave
\npetitions and no more. They are some-where around 547 or so.
\nThe exact  figure is  not necessary for us to mention except
\nto make\t it plain  that no  one who is not before this Court
\nnow will be entitled to the ameliora-\n<\/p>\n
1205<\/span><\/p>\n
tive relief  that we  propose to give largely induced by the
\nrealism when appealed to the Madras High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Having heard  counsel on  oth sides  on this aspect, we
\ndirect that  while the law has been declared by us and it in
\neffect reverse the position taken by the Andhra Pradesh High
\nCourt, the emoluments that the respondents in the appeals as
\nwell as\t the special  leave petitions  will draw will not be
\naffected, subject  of course  to our  observations regarding
\nthe second  point urged\t by the\t last  Additional  Solicitor
\nGeneral.\n<\/p>\n
     We thus make it clear that the net result of the Andhra
\nPradesh decision will prevail while the law laid down by the
\nsaid decision will stand set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     Now we  proceed to\t the second point urged before us by
\nShri Soli  J. Sorabjee. This takes us to the second decision
\nof the\tAndhra Pradesh\tHigh Court.  Certain  events  ensued
\nafter the first decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High
\nCourt. The  employees  who  were  beneficiaries\t under\tthat
\ndecision sought\t a clarification  of the decision with which
\nthe Union  of India  did not agree. Therefore, a second writ
\npetition was  filed where the High Court again went into the
\nconstruction of\t the concluding\t or decretal  portion of the
\nfirst decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Here again\t we do not agree with the conclusion reached
\nby the\tHigh Court because its reasoning appears to us to be
\nfallacious.   The   rivel   contentions\t  bearing   on\t the
\ninterpretation of  the first  decision may be briefly stated
\nbefore we  express our\topinion. The  whole grievance of the
\nemployees concerned  was that  had the\taggrieved Commercial
\nClerks\tnot  become  Assistant\tStation\t Master\t or  Station
\nMasters they  would have got the benefit of the New Deal and
\nthereby got  increased emoluments. This should not be denied
\nto them merely because they had gone over to the category of
\nAssistant Station  Masters\/Station  Masters.  The  necessary
\nconsequence is\tthat only such of them as had a chance going
\nup in  emoluments or  drawing increments attributable to the
\nNew Deal  could claim  any benefits  or advantages under the
\ndecision of  the Andhra\t Pradesh High  Court. This  was\t the
\ncontention pressed before us by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee. On the
\nother  hand,   Mr.  M.\tK.  Ramamurthy,\t appearing  for\t the
\nemployees-counsel for  the others  similarly  situated\thave
\nadopted his arguments-argued before us that the 2nd decision
\nof the\tAndhra Pradesh\tHigh Court  was correct and that the
\nillustration given  by the High Court graphically to clarify
\nits conclusion\twas realistic and correct. We do not go into
\nit in  greater detail  because we are clear in our mind that
\nthe  employees\t (ASMs\/SMs)  who,   had\t they  continued  as
\nCommercial Clerks would not have had
\n1206<\/span>
\nany increments\ton account  of the New Deal, could not claim
\nsuch increments\t on the\t basis of  the Andhra  Pradesh\tHigh
\nCourt decision.\t All that the Andhra Pradesh decision sought
\nto do was to see that ASMs\/SMs were not prejudiced merely by
\nleaving their  earlier position as Commercial Clerks. It did
\nnot put\t them in  a better  position than they would have if
\nthey had continued as Commercial Clerks. On this footing, we
\ndisagree with  the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
\nin the second round which was rendered in a clarification of
\nthe conclusion in the first decision
\n     Pragmatism here  again dictates  the ultimate relief we
\npropose to  give. Assuming  the clarification  by the Andhra
\nPradesh High  Court to\tbe wrong-and  it is  in the light of
\nwhat we have stated above-an intricate calculation will have
\nto be  made about  things of long ago and a restructuring of
\nthe little  benefits each  one draw  would have to be worked
\nout.  We  do  not  think  that\tthis  is  worth\t the  candle
\nespecially having  regard to  the fact\tthat  the  employees
\nbelonging to the lower category and their emoluments are far
\nfrom enviable.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  uphold the\t law as contended for by the
\nUnion of  India, but  decline to  interfere  with  the\tcash
\nresults and  emoluments that  the employees\/respondents have
\nbeen held  entitled to\tunder the  decisions of\t the  Andhra
\nPradesh High  Court and the Madras High Court. We dispose of
\nthe appeals  and the  special leave  petitions as  above. No
\ncosts. The  Union of  India will  implement  the  directions
\ngiven by  the High  Court concerned  within six\t months from
\ntoday.\n<\/p>\n
N.K.A.\n<\/p>\n
1207<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 959, 1980 SCR (2)1200 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: E. S. SOUNDARAJAN ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/04\/1979 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-31T16:21:23+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-31T16:21:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979\"},\"wordCount\":2145,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-31T16:21:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-31T16:21:23+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979","datePublished":"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-31T16:21:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979"},"wordCount":2145,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979","name":"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-31T16:21:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-etc-vs-e-s-soundarajan-etc-on-4-april-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs E. S. Soundarajan Etc on 4 April, 1979"}]},{"@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\/134729","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=134729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}