{"id":14788,"date":"1999-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999"},"modified":"2016-10-02T17:05:04","modified_gmt":"2016-10-02T11:35:04","slug":"b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 567, 83 (2000) DLT 195<\/div>\n
Author: N Nandi<\/div>\n
Bench: N Nandi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
N.G. Nandi, J.<\/p>\n
1.     Invoking  the  extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article  226  of  the Constitution  of India, the etitioners pray for direction to the  respondents to grant retirement benefits to the petitioners .e. pro-rata pension, gratuity,  leave  encashment and C.G.H.S. (Medical) card for  treatment  of
\nself  and wife in Government Hospitals at Delhi and New Delhi or cash  payment  in  lieu thereof ith all other terminal benefits as allowed  to  the Government servants on retirement as per the 5th Pay Commission with interest @ 12% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
2.   It has been the say of the petitioners that the petitioners are eligible  for grant of pro-rata pension with all other benefits based on  length of  qualifying service under the Government till the date of their  absorption in public sector undertakings.\n<\/p>\n
     That  petitioner  no.1 joined, the Army Ordnance Corps  (Personal  No. 21636) on 20.6.1944; that he went on deputation to the Hindustan Steel Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
Steel  Authority of India Ltd. (Bhilai Steel Plant); that he  continued  on deputation  from  the Army Ordnance Corp till 25.8.1960 when his  lien  was terminated  and  he  was  permanently  bsorbed  in  the  Hindustan   Steel Ltd.\/Steel  Authority  of India Ltd. (Bhilai Steel Ltd.);  that  the  total service rendered by the petitioner with the Army was 16 years 2 months  and 4 days. That petitioner No. 2 joined the Army Ordnance Corps (Personal  No. 21236) on 14.2.1944 and thereafter ent on deputation to the National Small Industrial  Corporation on 5.11.1959 and continued on deputation  from  the Army Ordnance Corp till 31.5.1964; that his lien was terminated and he  was bsorbed  in  the  National Small Industrial Corporation;  that  the  total service  of  petitioner No. 2 with the Army is 20 years, 3  months  and  18 days.  That  petitioner  No.  3 joined the  Army  Ordnance  Corp  (personal no.18381)  on  16.1.1945; thereafter went on deputation  to  the  industan Steel  Ltd.\/Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Bhilai Steel Plant) on  9.5.1958 and he continued on deputation from the Army Ordnance Corps till  11.7.1960 when  his  lien was terminated and he was absorbed in the  Hindustan  Steel Ltd.\/Steel  Authority of India Ltd. (Bhilai Steel lant) on 11.7.1960.  The total  service of petitioner No. 3 with the Army is 15 years, 5 months  and
\n26 days. That petitioner No. 4 joined the Army Ordnance Corp (Personal  No. 21874) on 29.8.1944 and thereafter went on deputation to the National Small Industrial Corporation on 15.4.1959 and he continued on deputation from the Army Ordnance Corps till 1.11.1963 when his lien was terminated and he  was absorbed  in  the  National Small Industrial Corporation;  that  the  total service of petitioner no.4 with the Army is 19 years, 2 months and 3  days. That  petitioner  No. 5 joined the E.M.E. Army base Workshop,  Delhi  Cantt (Personal  No. 7123618) on 11.6.1949 and thereafter went on  deputation  to the National Small Industrial Corporation on 21.3.1963 and he continued  on
\ndeputation  from the E.M.E. till 28.3.1965 and his lien was terminated  and he  was  absorbed in the National Small Industrial Corporation.  The  total service of petitioner no.5 with the Army is 15 years, 9 months and 17 days.\n<\/p>\n
     That as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, there is no distinction between the permanent and temporary employees in application of Pension Rules; that the petitioners case is directly covered by the  law declared  by  the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. hiruvengadam  Vs.  The Secretary to the Government of India in Civil Appeal No. 666 of 1993;  that
\nit was not open to the respondent to deny the benefit to the petitioners as it  would bring into existence arbitrary classification in respect  of  the Government employees absorbed in the public undertakings prior to June  16, 1967 and thereafter; that such classification is unwarranted under Articles 14  and  16 of the Constitution of India and as no nexus  with  the  object sought to be achieved by the Government Memorandum.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Respondent by counter-affidavit contends that the petitioners are  not entitled to the retirement benefits in view of the fact that the  petitioners  were  quasi-permanent  employees at the time of  their  absorption  in various  public sector undertakings; that in terms of the Govt.  of  India, Ministry  of defense letter dated 14.2.1985, quasi permanent  employees  of the  Central Government who are absorbed in public sector undertakings  are not  entitled to terminal benefits which are admissible to permanent  Govt. employees.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Annexure  P-1 is the copy of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.  666  of 1993  [arising out of SLP(C) No. 12010 of 1988) in the case of T.S.  Thiruvengadam  Vs. The Secretary to Govt. of India Ministry of Finance,  Department  of Expenditure, New Delhi & Others wherein the appellant was  in  the service  of  Central Government for a period of about 15 years and  he  was thereafter permanently absorbed in public sector undertaking from where  he retired  on  April 1, 1984. The question which came up before  the  Supreme Court  for consideration was whether the appellant on absorption in  public sector undertaking was eligible for pro-rata pension and  death-cum-retirement  gratuity  based  on the length of his qualifying  service  under  the Government till the date of absorption.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Learned  counsel  for the respondent has invited my attention  to  the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 37 is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     37.  Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company  or      body:-\n\n \n\n     (1) A Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in      a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly  or      substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or  a      State or in or under a Body controlled or financed by the Central \n     Government  or State Government, shall be deemed to have  retired      from  the date of such absorption and subject to sub-rule (3)  he      shall  be  eligible to receive retirement benefits which  he  may      have elected or deemed to have elected and from such date as  may      be  determined in accordance with the orders of the Central  Government applicable to him. \n \n\n     Explanation:- Date of absorption shall be-\n \n\n     (i) in case a Government employee joins a Corporation or  Company      or  body  on  immediate absorption basis, the date  on  which  he      actually joins that Corporation or Company or body; \n \n\n     (ii) in case a Government employee initially joins a  Corporation      or  Company or body on foreign service terms by retaining a  lien      under the Government, the date from which his unqualified  resignation is accepted by the Government. \n \n\n     (2)  The provisions of sub-rule (1) shall also apply  to  Central Government  servants  who are permitted to be absorbed  in  joint      sector  undertakings, wholly under the joint control  of  Central  Government and State Government\/Union Territory Administration or  under  the joint control of two or more  State  Governments\/Union  Territory Administrations. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
     (3)  Where  there  is a pension scheme in a  body  controlled  or financed by the Central Government in which a Government  servant is  absorbed, he shall be entitled to exercise option  either  to  count  the service rendered under the Central Government in  that   body  for pension or to receive pro-rata retirement benefits  for  the  service rendered under the Central Government in  accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation:- Body means (autonomous body or statutory body).\n<\/p>\n
6.   It my be seen from Rule 37 reproduced above that the Government  servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in Central or State public sector undertaking in public interest will be deemed to have retired from  service from  the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive  retirement  benefits  in accordance with the orders of Government  applicable  to him.\n<\/p>\n
7.   In  the case of T.S. Thiruvengadam Vs. The Secretary to Government  of India  (Supra), the retirement benefits of the appellant were regulated  by memorandum  dated  November  10, 1960, issued by the  Ministry  of  Finance (Department of Expenditure) New Delhi. The Government of India subsequently issued  memorandum dated June 16, 1967 providing revised terms  and  conditions  of absorption in Central Government undertaking but  restricted  the revised benefits only to those who were absorbed on or after June 16, 1967. It  has been held that “retirement benefits envisaged under Rule 37 are  to be  determined in accordance with the Government orders but the plain  language of the Rule does not permit any classification by granting retirement benefits  when  the Rules specifically provides that all  the  persons  who fulfill  the pre-conditions prescribed therein shall be deemed to  have  retired from Govt. service from the date of absorption and shall be  eligible to  receive  retirement  benefits then the Govt.  while  granting  benefits cannot deny the same to some of them on the basis of arbitrary  classification. All those persons who fulfill the conditions under Rule 37 are a class by themselves and no discrimination can be permitted within the said class. The  Government action in restricting the benefits under the revised  Memorandum  dated June 16, 1967 only to those who are absorbed after that  date goes contrary to the Rule and cannot be sustained.”\n<\/p>\n
8.   The only contention advanced by the respondent to baffle, the claim of the  petitioners is that the petitioners were quasi-permanent employees  of the Central Government who were absorbed in public sector undertakings  and are  not  entitled to terminal benefits which are admissible  to  permanent employees.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In this regard, Annexure R-1 (Copy of Government of India, Ministry of defense UO No. 64024\/233\/EIB\/731\/D (Civ-II) dated 14th Feb. 1985) has  been produced.  It suggests that the claim of quasi-permanent employees  of  the defense Ministry absorbed in public sector undertakings with regard to  the terminal  benefits for the service rendered in the Ministry of defense  has been ruled out.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The  respondent  has relied on the Central  Civil  Services  (Pension) Rules, 1972, which provide:-\n<\/p>\n
       1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (d) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (e) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (f) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (g) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (h) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
     GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S DECISIONS:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1)  Grant pensionary benefits to temporary  Government  servants   retiring  on superannuation\/invalidation on completion of  twenty  years, (now ten years) temporary service:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\n       (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\n       (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\n       (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\n       (6) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
     (2)  Grant  of pensionary benefits  to  temporary\/quasi-permanent Government servants:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2. Terminal benefits:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3. Death Benefits:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       4. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     5. The provisions of this Office memorandum shall apply to  those temporary and quasipermanent Government servants who are\/were in  service on 1.1.1986.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       6. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3. Definitions:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (1)(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\n       (aa) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
11.  Annexure  P-2 is the Office memorandum dated 3rd January,  1995  which states  that after careful examination of the judgment dated  17.2.1993  in Civil  Appeal No. 666\/93 (Shri T.S. Thiruvengadam Vs. Union of India),  the President  has  now been pleased to decide that the benefit of  O.M.  dated 16.6.1967  may  be  extended to all Central Government  employees  who  are
\nabsorbed  in central public sector undertakings prior to 16.6.1967  subject to certain conditions mentioned in Annexure P-2.\n<\/p>\n
12.  It  is  pertinent to note that Government of  India’s  decision-  Rule (2)(5)  reproduced  above suggests that the provisions of the  said  office memorandum  will apply to those emporary\/quasi-permanent Government  servants  who are\/were in service on 1.1.1986 meaning thereby  the  distinction between  regular employee and temporary\/quasi permanent employee  has  been
\ndone  away w.e.f. 1.1.1986 pursuant to the recommendations of the IVth  Pay Commission,  which is effective from 1.1.1996 in view of Rule  2(1)(2)  and Rule  2(5). All the petitioners retired from the respondents, service  from 11.7.1960 to 28.3.1965.\n<\/p>\n
13.  It cannot be disputed that the recommendations of the IVth Central Pay Commission  cannot be retrospective in nature so as to extend the  benefits thereunder  to  the employees who were temporary\/quasi-permanent  and  have retired prior to 1.1.1986. As pointed out above, all the petitioners admittedly retired prior to 1.1.1986.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Above being the position the principle laid down in this case of  T.S. Thiruvengadam  Vs. Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance,  Dept. of Expenditure, New Delhi & Others (Supra) will not be of any assistance to the petitioners and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any classification  or discrimination violative of Rule 37 as far as the  petitioners
\nare concerned.\n<\/p>\n
15.  In the result, the writ petition fails. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 567, 83 (2000) DLT 195 Author: N Nandi Bench: N Nandi ORDER N.G. Nandi, J. 1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the etitioners pray for direction […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999 - 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\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-02T11:35:04+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-02T11:35:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1720,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999\",\"name\":\"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-02T11:35:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999 - 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\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-02T11:35:04+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-02T11:35:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999"},"wordCount":1720,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999","name":"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-02T11:35:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-n-samanotra-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.N. Samanotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 1999"}]},{"@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\/14788","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=14788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}