{"id":138537,"date":"2005-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005"},"modified":"2017-09-18T23:43:57","modified_gmt":"2017-09-18T18:13:57","slug":"sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & … on 16 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & … on 16 September, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR         \n\n      Writ Petition No. 2472 of 1994\n\n      Sohan Singh\n                                    ....Petitioner\n                            -Versus-\n      The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others\n                                    ....Respondent\n\n!      Mr.  H.  B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Miss Sangeeta\n       Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.\n^      Mr. P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Sharma,\n       Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2.\n\n      By Justice Satish K. Agniho\n\n\n      Dated: 16\/09\/2005\n\n:      O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       ( 16 September 2005)<\/p>\n
  1.   The  present  petition  filed under  Article  227  of  the<\/p>\n
       Constitution of India impugns the order dated 7.3.1994 (Annexure<\/p>\n
       P\/25) passed by the Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur in Appeal<\/p>\n
       No. 182\/M.P.I.R. Act\/93.\n<\/p>\n
  2.   The   relevant  facts,  for  adjudication,  are  that  the<\/p>\n
       petitioner was appointed as Fitter, in the year 1959, in Coke<\/p>\n
       Oven and By-product Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai,<\/p>\n
       District- Durg. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded<\/p>\n
       in the service record, on the basis of his declaration, as<\/p>\n
       `10.1.1932′. In Exhibit D\/10, which is Line of Promotion List<\/p>\n
       (seniority list) for the post of Chargeman, mentioning Revised<\/p>\n
       Pay Scale w.e.f. 1.9.1970, the petitioner is placed at Srl. No.6<\/p>\n
       and his date of birth mentioned in this document as `10.1.32′.<\/p>\n
       Likewise in the Exhibit D\/9, which is L.O.P. (Line of Promotion)<\/p>\n
       Seniority  of  Capital Repair Group  (Published  vide  No.<\/p>\n
       S(M&R)\/Estt\/Sen\/74\/(CR)\/1636 dated 27.2.74, the name of the<\/p>\n
       petitioner is placed at Srl. No. 1 in the cadre of Chargeman and<\/p>\n
       his date of birth is mentioned as `10\/1\/32′ in this document, and<\/p>\n
       thereafter it was continued to be recorded as 10.1.1932 on the<\/p>\n
       basis of the service record. According to the petitioner in<\/p>\n
       Exhibit P\/1, which is Application Form for admission to the<\/p>\n
       Provident Fund, for submission in the Office of the Chairman<\/p>\n
       Board of Trustees, Provident Fund, Bhilai Steel Plant, filled in<\/p>\n
       on 4.3.1983, his date of birth was mentioned as `13.1.1942′ by<\/p>\n
       the petitioner and it was accepted by the Assistant Manager<\/p>\n
       (Personnel) of the Respondents No. 1 and 2. The Declaration and<\/p>\n
       Nomination Form (Exhibit P\/2) made on 5.3.1983 by the petitioner<\/p>\n
       also  indicated  the date of birth of  the  petitioner  as<\/p>\n
       `13.1.1942′. The petitioner obtained a copy of  the  Birth<\/p>\n
       Certificate in Punjabi language from the Chief Registrar (Births<\/p>\n
       and Deaths) Punjab on 24.4.1989 wherein the date of birth of the<\/p>\n
       petitioner  was  recorded as 23.1.1942. Subsequently,  the<\/p>\n
       petitioner obtained English version of the date  of  birth<\/p>\n
       certificate  from the office of the Municipal Corporation,<\/p>\n
       Amritsar  on 30.11.1992 wherein the date of birth  of  the<\/p>\n
       petitioner was recorded as `18.1.1942′. It is evident from this<\/p>\n
       document that the date of registration was `23rd January, 1942′<\/p>\n
       and the Registration number was `678′.\n<\/p>\n
  3.   The petitioner had received notice dated 8.9.1989 (Annexure<\/p>\n
       P\/10) whereby he was informed that on attaining the age of<\/p>\n
       superannuation the petitioner would retire on 31.1.1990. Prior to<\/p>\n
       this notice, the petitioner had been raising his grievance to the<\/p>\n
       Respondents No. 1 and 2 by submitting representations i.e. on<\/p>\n
       20.3.1989 (Annexure P\/5), on 10.5.1989 (Annexure P\/2),  on<\/p>\n
       24.7.1989 (Annexure P\/4) for correcting his date of birth as<\/p>\n
       `13.1.1942′ instead of `10.1.1932′.\n<\/p>\n
  4.   That being aggrieved by the non correction of his date  of<\/p>\n
       birth to 13.1.1942, the petitioner filed an application under<\/p>\n
       Section 31(3) read with Sections 61 and 64-A of the Madhya<\/p>\n
       Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter `the Act,<\/p>\n
       1960′) before the Labour Court, Durg praying for a relief that<\/p>\n
       his date of birth be corrected as 13.1.1942 and the respondents<\/p>\n
       be directed to retire him accordingly on the basis of his date of<\/p>\n
       birth i.e. 13.1.1942. The Labour Court, Durg, drawing adverse<\/p>\n
       inference from the facts that the original service book could not<\/p>\n
       be produced and the management had not taken any action against<\/p>\n
       the erring officials, and relying on the entry in the Provident<\/p>\n
       Fund Form and Declaration Form, and further relying on the birth<\/p>\n
       certificate, produced by the petitioner, wherein there was<\/p>\n
       contradiction in the date of birth in the certificate issued in<\/p>\n
       Punjabi  language and in the certificate issued in English<\/p>\n
       language, the Labour Court vide order dated 20.5.1993 passed in<\/p>\n
       Case No. 172\/M.P.I.R.\/89 declared the date of birth of the<\/p>\n
       petitioner as 13.1.1942 and directed the respondents to retire<\/p>\n
       the petitioner after completion of the age of 58 years on the<\/p>\n
       basis of the date of birth of the petitioner as `13.1.1942′.<\/p>\n
  5.   Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.5.1993 passed by the<\/p>\n
       Labour Court, Durg, the respondents filed appeal under section 65<\/p>\n
       of  the Act, 1960 before the Industrial Court, Raipur. The<\/p>\n
       Industrial Court vide order dated 7.3.1994 passed in Appeal No.<\/p>\n
       182\/M.P.I.R.Act\/93, after having considered all the documents<\/p>\n
       recorded the findings that the seniority list of February, 1974<\/p>\n
       clearly  indicates the date of birth of the petitioner  as<\/p>\n
       10.1.1932. Admittedly, recording of the date of birth in the<\/p>\n
       seniority list was on the basis of the date of birth recorded at<\/p>\n
       the time of appointment in the service book. It was found that no<\/p>\n
       adverse  inference can be drawn because the service  book,<\/p>\n
       attestation form and other documents prepared at the time of the<\/p>\n
       appointment could not be produced being the old documents. The<\/p>\n
       Industrial Court, however, found that the subsequent documents<\/p>\n
       like Provident Fund Form, Declaration & Nomination Form etc. made<\/p>\n
       by the petitioner recording\/mentioning his date of birth as<\/p>\n
       13.1.1942 cannot be relied upon for determining the date of<\/p>\n
       birth. The birth and date certificate produced by the petitioner<\/p>\n
       obtained  in  Punjabi language and English  language  have<\/p>\n
       contradictory dates of birth. In Punjabi the date of birth was<\/p>\n
       recorded as 23.1.1942 and the father’s name was Dil Sher Singh,<\/p>\n
       no place of birth was recorded in the said certificate. In the<\/p>\n
       subsequent date of birth certificate, the date of birth of the<\/p>\n
       petitioner is mentioned as 18th January, 1942 and father’s name<\/p>\n
       as  Sher Singh. The Industrial Court did consider the said<\/p>\n
       documents also. The Industrial Court after having considered and<\/p>\n
       having appreciated all the documents and depositions of the<\/p>\n
       witnesses of the parties, came to the conclusion that  the<\/p>\n
       petitioner’s date of birth was 10.1.1932 and the petitioner was<\/p>\n
       rightly retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years.<\/p>\n
       The Industrial Court vide order dated 7.3.1994 after recording<\/p>\n
       the  above stated reasons allowed the appeal filed by  the<\/p>\n
       respondents and set aside the award dated 20.5.1993 passed by the<\/p>\n
       Labour Court, Durg.\n<\/p>\n
  6.   I  have  heard  learned counsel for both the  parties  and<\/p>\n
       perused the records of the Courts below. This Court has limited<\/p>\n
       jurisdiction in exercise of its supervisory powers under Article<\/p>\n
       227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court can interfere<\/p>\n
       only in cases of erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction,<\/p>\n
       refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the<\/p>\n
       face of records, arbitrary or capricious exercise of powers of<\/p>\n
       the authority or discrimination, flagrant error in procedure and<\/p>\n
       recording of the perverse findings. In the present case I have<\/p>\n
       not found that any of the ground stated above has been invoked to<\/p>\n
       seek interference of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
  7.   Shri  H.  B.  Agarwal, learned Senior  counsel  with  Miss<\/p>\n
       Sangeeta Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<\/p>\n
       submitted that the Labour Court’s order was perfectly legal and<\/p>\n
       sustainable. The respondents were unable to prove their case in<\/p>\n
       absence  of  service book and attestation forms  that  the<\/p>\n
       petitioner’s date of birth was 10.1.1932 and not 13.1.1942. The<\/p>\n
       petitioner has not taken missing of the records as seriously by<\/p>\n
       not  taking  any action against the erring officials.  The<\/p>\n
       Industrial Court had recorded the findings on the basis of the<\/p>\n
       seniority list alone and completely ignored the provident fund<\/p>\n
       form and nomination form filled in by the petitioner and accepted<\/p>\n
       by the Management. The contradictions in both date of birth<\/p>\n
       certificates in Punjabi and English are insignificant.<\/p>\n
  8.   Mr.  P.  Diwakar  learned Senior counsel with  Mr.  Mahesh<\/p>\n
       Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the<\/p>\n
       contrary submitted that the Industrial Court has considered all<\/p>\n
       the aspects of the matter and the same is valid and legal.<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that this<\/p>\n
       Court  has limited jurisdiction under Article 227  of  the<\/p>\n
       Constitution of India. Learned counsel relied on the decision in<\/p>\n
       Secretary & Commissioner, Home Department & others Vs.  R. <\/p>\n
       Kriubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) S.C.C.155 wherein the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
       held as under:\n<\/p>\n
          “7.  An application for correction of the date of birth
\n          should  not be dealt with by the tribunal or  the  High
\n          Court   keeping   in  view  only  the  public   servant
\n          concerned.  It  need not be pointed out that  any  such
\n          direction  for correction of the date of birth  of  the
\n          public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch
\n          as  others  waiting  for years,  below  him  for  their
\n          respective  promotions are affected  in  this  process.
\n          Some  are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch
\n          as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the
\n          officer  concerned, continues in office, in some  cases
\n          for  years,  within which time many  officers  who  are
\n          below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may
\n          lose  their promotions for ever. Cases are not  unknown
\n          when  a person accepts appointment keeping in view  the
\n          date  of  retirement of his immediate senior. According
\n          to  us,  this is an important aspect, which  cannot  be
\n          lost  sight  of  by  the court or  the  tribunal  while
\n          examining the grievance of a public servant in  respect
\n          of  correction of his date of birth. As such, unless  a
\n          clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held
\n          to  be  conclusive  in  nature,  is  made  out  by  the
\n          respondent, the court or the tribunal should not  issue
\n          a  direction, on the basis of materials which make such
\n          claim only plausible….”\n<\/p>\n
  9.   In the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay & another Vs.<\/p>\n
       Bhagwan V. Lahane, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 247, relied by learned counsel<\/p>\n
       for the<\/p>\n
  10.    respondents, the Supreme Court held that  entry  in  the<\/p>\n
       service book made on the basis of the date of birth is final<\/p>\n
       unless it is proved by the employee that the said entry was made<\/p>\n
       due to negligence on the part of some other person or that it was<\/p>\n
       an obvious clerical error.\n<\/p>\n
  11.  In the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. West Bengal Vs.<\/p>\n
       Shib Kumar Dushad & others (2000) 8 S.C.C. 696, relied on by<\/p>\n
       learned counsel for the respondents the Supreme Court held as<\/p>\n
       under:\n<\/p>\n
          “17.   The  date of birth of an employee  is  not  only
\n          important  for the employee but for the employer  also.
\n          On the length of service put in by the employee depends
\n          the  quantum  of retiral benefits he would be  entitled
\n          to.  Therefore, while determining the dispute  in  such
\n          matters courts should bear in mind that a change of the
\n          date  of birth long after joining service, particularly
\n          when  the employee is due to retire shortly, will upset
\n          the date recorded in the service records maintained  in
\n          due  course  of administration should not generally  be
\n          accepted.  In  such a case the burden is heavy  on  the
\n          employee who comes to the court with the case that  the
\n          date  of birth in the service record maintained by  the
\n          employer  is  untrue and incorrect. The burden  can  be
\n          discharged only by producing acceptable evidence  of  a
\n          clinching  nature.  We  are constrained  to  make  this
\n          observation as we find that in a large number of  cases
\n          employees  who are on the verge of retirement  raise  a
\n          dispute  regarding  correctness of the  date  of  birth
\n          entered  in  the  service record  and  the  courts  are
\n          inclined  to  pass an interim order for continuance  of
\n          such employee beyond the date of superannuation on  the
\n          basis  of  the  entry of date of birth in  the  service
\n          record.  Such a situation cannot be commended  for  the
\n          reason that the court in passing such an interim  order
\n          grants a relief to the employee even before determining
\n          the  issue regarding correctness of the date  of  birth
\n          entered  in  the  service record. Such  interim  orders
\n          create  various complications. Anticipated vacancy  for
\n          which  the  employee next in the line has been  waiting
\n          does not materialize, on account of which the junior is
\n          denied  promotion which he has all along  been  led  to
\n          believe  will  be  his  due on the  retirement  of  the
\n          senior.”\n<\/p>\n
  12.  In  the  case  of  Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs.  S.M.Jadhav  &<\/p>\n
       another, (2001) 4 S.C.C. 52 the Supreme Court held that the<\/p>\n
       employee cannot be allowed to raise a dispute with regard to the<\/p>\n
       date of birth at the fag end of his career.\n<\/p>\n
  13.  It is settled position of law that the employee should not<\/p>\n
       be  allowed to raise the dispute of the date of birth  for<\/p>\n
       correction at the fag end of his career. In Clause -5 of the<\/p>\n
       Circular No. 87 dated 2nd August, 1974 issued by the Hindustan<\/p>\n
       Steel Ltd. Bhilai Steel Plant it is clearly provided that no<\/p>\n
       change in the date of birth should be allowed if such request is<\/p>\n
       received during the preceding five years of service of the<\/p>\n
       employee for any reason whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
  14.  The  petitioner was retired from service on  31.1.1990  on<\/p>\n
       attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on completion of 58<\/p>\n
       years of age in accordance with his date of birth recorded as<\/p>\n
       10.1.1932. The petitioner has raised a dispute at the fag end of<\/p>\n
       his career knowing fully well that in all the seniority list<\/p>\n
       published earlier in the years 1970, 1974 and thereafter, had<\/p>\n
       indicated the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.1.1932. The<\/p>\n
       documents  produced  subsequently  cannot  be  taken  into<\/p>\n
       consideration. Some of the documents namely Provident Fund Form,<\/p>\n
       Nomination Form were filled in by the petitioner, and  the<\/p>\n
       certificate of birth and date produced by the petitioner in<\/p>\n
       Punjabi as well as in English are contradictory, as such, I do<\/p>\n
       not  find any perversity in the findings recorded  by  the<\/p>\n
       Industrial Court to call for interference of this Court under<\/p>\n
       Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
  15.  From the decisions cited above, it is clear that unless  a<\/p>\n
       clear case is made out on the basis of the materials which are<\/p>\n
       held to be conclusive in nature, the Court or Tribunal should not<\/p>\n
       issue a direction for change of the date of birth.<\/p>\n
       For  the  reasons stated above, the petition is  dismissed<\/p>\n
       and  the  order  dated 7.3.1994 passed by  the  Industrial<\/p>\n
       Court is upheld. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & … on 16 September, 2005 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2472 of 1994 Sohan Singh ….Petitioner -Versus- The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others ….Respondent ! Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate […]<\/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-138537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & ... on 16 September, 2005 - 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\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & ... on 16 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-18T18:13:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & … on 16 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-18T18:13:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2291,\"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\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & ... on 16 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-18T18:13:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & … on 16 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & ... on 16 September, 2005 - 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\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & ... on 16 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-18T18:13:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & … on 16 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-18T18:13:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005"},"wordCount":2291,"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\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005","name":"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & ... on 16 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-18T18:13:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sohan-singh-vs-the-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-on-16-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sohan Singh vs The Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & … on 16 September, 2005"}]},{"@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\/138537","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=138537"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138537\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}