{"id":146959,"date":"2002-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002"},"modified":"2017-09-08T04:55:42","modified_gmt":"2017-09-07T23:25:42","slug":"the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL\nCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n\n  NEW\nDELHI \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n  REVISION PETITION NO. 961 OF\n1997 \n\n \n\n(From\nthe order dated 7.2.97 in Appeal No.645\/95 \n\n \n\nof the State Commission Maharashtra)\n\n \n\nThe\nComptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr.  Petitioner Vs.\n\n \n\nShivkant\nShankar Naik    Respondent\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n  REVISION PETITION NO. 933 OF\n2001 \n\n \n\n(From\nthe order dated 5.6.2000 in\nAppeal No.2409\/99 \n\n \n\nof the State Commission Maharashtra)\n\n \n\nThe Accountant\nGeneral (A&E-II)   Petitioner Vs.\n\n \n\nSitaram Yadav\n& Anr.    Respondents\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n  REVISION PETITION NO.\n1115 OF 2001 \n\n \n\n(From\nthe order dated 11.8.2000 in Appeal No.151\/SC\/99 \n\n \n\nof the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)\n\n \n\nThe\nComptorller & Auditor General of\nIndia & Anr.   Petitioners Vs.\n\n \n\nBhuwan Chandra\nPant & Anr.    Respondents\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n  REVISION PETITION NO.\n1319 OF 2001 \n\n \n\n(From\nthe order dated 11.6.2001 in\nAppeal No.159\/SC\/2000\n\n \n\nof the State Commission Uttar Pardesh)\n\n \n\nThe Principal\nAccountant General   Petitioner Vs.\n\n \n\nJia Lal    Respondent\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nA\nN D\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n  REVISION PETITION NO. 1775  OF\n2001 \n\n \n\n(From\nthe order dated 26.6.2001 in\nAppeal No.894\/2001 \n\n \n\nof the State Commission Maharashtra)\n\n \n\nThe Accountant\nGeneral (A&E-II)   Petitioner Vs.\n\n \n\nD.R. Nagwanshi\n& Anr.    Respondents\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n BEFORE: \n\n \n\n HONBLE\nMR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,  \n\n \n\n  PRESIDENT \n\n \n\n HONBLE\nMR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER \n\n \n\n MRS.\nRAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n MR.\nB.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nProvident Fund - GPF under the Provident Fund Act - does not raise a\nconsumer dispute. \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nFor the\npetitioner in all the petitions : Mr. R. Srinivasan, \n\n \n\nAuthorised\nRepresentative\n\n \n\n Director\n(Legal)\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nFor the\nrespondents in all the petitions: Mr.\nR.U. Upadhyay and\n\n \n\n Mr.\nJoy Basu, Advocates\n\n \n\n  O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
 \u00a0 <\/p>\n
 DATED THE 13th
\nDecember, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0 <\/p>\n
 JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT) <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 In this
\nbatch of five revision petitions the
\nquestion that arises for consideration is if
\nthe petitioners i.e. The Comptroller & Auditor General of
\nIndia and the respective Accountant
\nGeneral of the State (hereinafter collectively described as
\nAccountant General) are rendering any
\nservice to the respondents under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 and the Rules
\nframed thereunder, to the respondent in
\neach of these matters who are regular
\nGovernment employees in their respective State.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0 <\/p>\n
 REVISION PETITION No.961 of 1997:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 In this case
\nrespondent retired as Senior Clerk in
\nthe office of the Maharashtra State
\nGovernment. Dispute raised was
\nregarding payment of his provident fund dues under the Provident Fund Act. Respondent contended that when his GPF account was settled the
\nAccountant General paid him
\nRs.80\/- less from the
\namount payable to him. He wrote to the Accountant General but without
\nresult which led him to file the complaint before the District Forum which was
\nallowed. State Commission on appeal
\nfiled by the Accountant General dismissed the same. An objection had been raised
\nby the Accountant General that
\nthe complaint did not raise any
\nconsumer dispute and that they were not rendering any service within the
\nmeaning of Section 2(o) of the consumer
\nProtection Act and that respondent is
\ngoverned by relevant service rules and further that Accountant General
\nis performing its statutory functions
\nunder the relevant provisions of law.\n<\/p>\n
 REVISION PETITION No.933 of
\n2001:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 In this
\nmatter State Commission dismissed the appeal of Accountant General holding that
\nit was barred by limitation and that there was no convincing ground to condone
\nthe delay. The order of the District Forum was received by the Account General on
\n23.8.1999 and the appeal was filed on 21.12.99. District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent held that
\na certain amount was wrongly deducted from the GPF account of the respondent.
\nSuch account of course was maintained under the Provident Fund Act. Since question of substantial importance has
\nbeen raised we will, in the circumstances of the case condone the delay in
\nfiling the appeal before the State Commission and ourselves hear the matter instead of sending it back to the State Commission for fresh
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
 REVISION PETITION No. 1115 of
\n2001:\n<\/p>\n
 In this case
\nDistrict Forum held that premium paid
\nby the Accountant General for the
\npolicy taken from the Life Insurance Corporation by the respondent, from the
\nGPF account maintained by it under the
\nProvident Fund Act, could not be
\ncovered under the statutory functions
\nperformed by the Accountant General under the aforesaid provident Fund
\nAct. State Commission did not accept
\nthe argument of Accountant General that by paying premium for the life insurance policy of the respondent from
\nthe GPF account was without consideration and was in fact part of
\nits statutory functions.\n<\/p>\n
Even though State Commission said that function was being performed under
\nsome policy decision of the State Government.
\nState Commission upheld the view taken by the District Forum and
\ndismissed the appeal of the Accountant General.\n<\/p>\n
 REVISION PETITION No. 1319 of
\n2001:\n<\/p>\n
 In this case
\nDistrict Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed that
\nthe balance amounts of gratuity and GPF be paid to the respondent. Admittedly, the amounts were paid from the
\nProvident Fund Account of the
\nrespondent-complainant maintained under
\nthe Provident Fund Act. State Commission
\non appeal filed by the Accountant General, did not find any merit in the objection raised by it and dismissed
\nthe revision filed by it against the preliminary objection raised before the
\nDistrict Forum challenging its jurisdiction.
\nIt is against that order of the State Commission this revision petition
\nhas been filed. As a matter of fact,
\nState Commission did not itself consider
\nthe objection on merit but
\nrather swayed by the argument of the respondent that revision before it did
\nnot lie and that only appeal was maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 REVISION PETITION No. 1775
\nof 2001 :\n<\/p>\n
 Maharashtra
\nState Commission relying on the
\ndecision of this Commission in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commission vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi<\/a> – 1(1996) CPJ 199
\nwhich was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court reported as (2000) I SCC 98, held that Accountant General was
\nrendering service while maintaining the
\nprovident fund account of the respondent – complainant under the Provident Fund Act.\n<\/p>\n
 While
\nconsidering these matters we are
\nconfining ourselves to the
\nprovisions of the Provident Fund Act as applicable to the government
\nemployees. This Act came into force on 27.8.1925. It defines compulsory deposit contribution
\nto Government and other Provident Fund.
\nAgain we are dealing with the
\nGovernment Provident fund which under clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act
\nmeans :\n<\/p>\n
(d) Government
\nProvident Fund means a Provident
\nFund, other than a Railway Provident Fund, constituted by the authority of the Secretary of State,
\nthe Central Government, the Crown Representative of any State Government for
\nany class or classes of persons in the service of the Government or of persons employed in educational
\ninstitutions or employed by bodies existing solely for educational purposes,
\nand references in this Act to the Government shall be construed accordingly;\n<\/p>\n
 Section
\n4 contains provisions regarding
\nrepayment from the Provident Fund. It
\nis done under the Rules of the respective State Governments and the
\nofficer whose duty it is to make the payment shall pay the amount to the
\nsubscriber or depositor as per those provisions. Power also exists to make deduction from the Provident Fund. Under proviso to Article *309 of the
\nConstitution State Governments have
\nframed Rules under the Provident Fund Act.
\nA conjoint reading of the Provident Fund Act and the Rules so framed by
\nthe State Governments would show that payment to Provident Fund is one of
\nthe service conditions of the government servant. He is entitled to make withdrawal from the Provident Fund as per
\nvarious contingencies mentioned in the Act and the Rules. The Provident Fund
\nAccount of the government employees is
\nmaintained by the Accountant General of the respective States. Duty
\nhas been cast
\non them to pay the amount
\nof Provident Fund
\nto the government servant. Payment
\nto the Provident Fund Account from the
\nsalary of the
\ngovernment servant and
\nhis getting withdrawals on the grounds
\nmentioned in the
\nAct and the
\nRules and to<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
*309. Recruitment and conditions of service of
\npersons serving the Union or a State. –
\nSubject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate
\nthe recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the
\naffairs of the Union of or of any State:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Provided that
\nit shall be competent for the President
\nor such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in
\nconnection with the affairs of the union, and for the Governor of a State or such a person as he may direct in the
\ncase of services and post in connection with the affairs of the State, to make
\nrules regulating the recruitment, and
\nthe conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that
\nbehalf is made by or under an Act of
\nthe appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall
\nhave effect subject to the provisions of any such Act.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
receive the balance amount lying
\nin his credit at the time of retirement
\nis part of his service condition with
\nwhich he is governed. In the case of
\nState of Orissa vs. Divisional Manager, LIC
\n& Anr.<\/a> (1996) 8 SCC 655
\nSupreme Court observed that a government servant is bound by the service conditions and the State was running service free of charge to him. In that case State Commission had awarded
\na sum of Rs.1.00 lakhs as damages against the State of Orissa. Supreme Court said the government servant had been excluded from the provisions of
\nthe Consumer Protection Act to claim any damages against the State under the
\nAct and, therefore, if any claim arises for
\na government servant it would
\nbe open to him to claim the same in any
\nother Forum but not under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Supreme Court also observed that if the claim is barred by limitation,
\ntime taken during the entire
\nproceedings under the Consumer Protection Act,
\nshall stand excluded.\n<\/p>\n
 The
\nAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was
\npassed by the Parliament under the Provisions of Article 323A of the Constitution. Reading of Section
\n*28 and *29 of<\/p>\n
this Act would show that that it is only the Administrative Tribunal
\nconstituted under the Act, or under
\nthe State Act, will
\nhave jurisdiction to consider
\nany dispute relating to _________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
*28. Exclusion
\nof jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court.- On and from the date from which any
\njurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a
\nTribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any
\nservice or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons
\nappointed to any Service or post, no court except –\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
a) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nThe Supreme Court; or<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
b) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nany industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other
\nauthority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or
\nany other corresponding law for the time being in force,<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
shall have, or
\nbe entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to
\nsuch recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service
\nmatters.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
*29. Transfer
\nof pending cases.- (1) Every suit
\nor other proceeding pending before any court or other authority immediately
\nbefore the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a
\nsuit or proceeding the cause of action
\nwhereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
service conditions of the
\nState Government employee. As a matter of fact,
\nexcept for the Supreme Court jurisdiction
\nof other Courts and Tribunals
\nhave been excluded. However, in
\na judgment of the Supreme Court it has been held that jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution would not be excluded and now appeals from the orders of the Administrative
\nTribunal, goes to the High Court though the Act prescribes appeal to the
\nSupreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
after such
\nestablishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand
\ntransferred on that date to such Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
 Provided that nothing in this
\nsub-section shall apply to any appeal
\npending as aforesaid before a High Court<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 (2) Every
\nsuit or other proceeding pending before
\na court or other authority
\nimmediately before the date with
\neffect from which jurisdiction is conferred on a Tribunal in relation to
\nany local or other authority or corporation or society, being a suit or
\nproceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have
\nbeen, if it had arisen after the said date, within the jurisdiction of such
\nTribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any
\nappeal pending as aforesaid before a High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section date
\nwith effect from which jurisdiction is conferred on a Tribunal, in relation to
\nany local or other authority or corporation or society, means the date with
\neffect from which the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 14 or, as the
\ncase may be, sub-section (3) of section 15 are applied to such local or other
\nauthority or corporation or society.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) Where immediately before the date of
\nestablishment of a Joint Administrative Tribunal any one or more of the States
\nfor which it is established, has or have a State Tribunal or State Tribunals,
\nall cases pending before such State Tribunal or State Tribunals immediately
\nbefore the said date together with the records thereof shall stand transferred
\non that date to such Joint Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Explanation. For
\nthe purpose of this sub-section, State Tribunal means a Tribunal established
\nunder sub-section (2) of section 4.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
(4) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n..\n<\/p>\n
(5) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n..\n<\/p>\n
(6) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n.\n<\/p>\n
(7) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n..\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 We may also
\nnote that duties and powers of the
\nComptroller and Auditor Generals have
\nalready been prescribed under the
\nComptroller and Auditor Generals (Duties, Powers and Conditions of
\nService) Act, 1971. We do not think it
\nis necessary for us to refer this enactment for the decision of the
\npresent controversy. The decision of
\nthe Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi<\/a> – (2000) 1 SCC 98 is clearly
\ndistinguishable as that was
\nrendered on the interpretation of the
\nprovisions of the Employees Provident
\nFunds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
\n1952 and the Scheme framed
\nthereunder. Shiv Kumar Joshi was
\nnot a government employee.\n<\/p>\n
Here in this batch of revisions petitions all the complainants were State Government employees
\nand as such governed by the statutory
\nrules applicable to their respective
\nservice and for the purpose of
\nraising service dispute to go
\nthe State Administrative Tribunal wherever established or to any authority except to the Forum
\nunder the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also wherever established <\/p>\n
 We hold that
\ndispute raised by the
\ncomplainants-respondents is not
\nconsumer dispute and they are not
\nconsumers and Accountant Generals are not running any service within
\nthe meaning of the Consumer Protection
\nAct, 1986. It may also be noticed that
\nthe State Government in the exercise of its power has jurisdiction to give
\ninstructions not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Statutory Rules on that subject. We, therefore, allow all these revision
\npetitions and set aside the orders of
\nthe District Forums and the State Commissions and dismiss the complaints.
\nThere shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
(D.P.\n<\/p>\n
WADHWA)<\/p>\n
  PRESIDENT<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
(J.K.\n<\/p>\n
MEHRA )<\/p>\n
  MEMBER<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
(RAJYALAKSHMI
\nRAO)<\/p>\n
 MEMBER<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
(B.K.\n<\/p>\n
TAIMNI)<\/p>\n
  MEMBER<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 REVISION PETITION NO. 961 OF 1997 (From the order dated 7.2.97 in Appeal No.645\/95 of the State Commission Maharashtra) The Comptroller & Auditor General of […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002 - 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\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-07T23:25:42+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\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-07T23:25:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2262,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002\",\"name\":\"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-07T23:25:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002 - 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\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-07T23:25:42+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\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-07T23:25:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002"},"wordCount":2262,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002","name":"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-07T23:25:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-accountant-general-ae-ii-vs-sitaram-yadav-anr-on-13-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002"}]},{"@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\/146959","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=146959"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146959\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}