{"id":151013,"date":"1972-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972"},"modified":"2016-11-12T15:31:11","modified_gmt":"2016-11-12T10:01:11","slug":"senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972","title":{"rendered":"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S &#8230; vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Senior Superintendent,R.M.S &#8230; vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1487, \t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 530<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,R.M.S COCHIN &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.   V. GOPINATH, SORTER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/02\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 1487\t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 530\n 1973 SCC  (3) 867\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1975 SC 536\t (1)\n O\t    1975 SC1116\t (1,2)\n R\t    1982 SC 149\t (228)\n O\t    1986 SC 737\t (16)\n O\t    1986 SC 999\t (11,13,15,17)\n\n\nACT:\nCivil  Servant--Central Services (Temporary  Service)  Rules\n1965, or 5(1) (b) proviso--Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  services  of  the respondent,  a  temporary  government\nservant, were terminated on a particular day, but his.salary\nand  allowances\t due till then were not paid on\t that  date.\nThe  High  Court  held\tthat  the  termination\twas  not  in\naccordance  with  the  provisions of r.\t 5  of\tthe  Central\nService (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD  : (1) Rule 5 (1) (a) gives the Government as  well  as\nthe  employee  a  right to put an end to the  service  by  a\nnotice in writing.  Under r. 1 (b) the period prescribed for\nsuch  notice  is  one month.  The proviso  to  the  sub-rule\nhowever\t gives\tthe Government an option not to\t retain\t the\nemployee  in  service till the expiry of the period  of\t the\nnotice; but to be effective, the termination of service\t has\nto  be\tsimultaneous  with the payment to  the\temployee  of\nwhatever is due to him.\t The operative words of the proviso\nare  'the  services of any such government  servant  may  be\nterminated  forthwith by payment', showing that the  payment\nis a condition of the termination of service forthwith. [532\nD-F]\nSince the words used are, plain and unambiguous they must be\nconstrued in their ordinary sense without any considerations\nof policy. [532 F-G]\n(3)There  will\talways\tbe  some  time\tduring\twhich  the\nauthority  deliberates\tover, the matter and  makes  up\t his\nmind,  and within that- time, directions can be\t given\tthat\nthe  pay and allowances of the government servant should  be\ncalculated so that they could be offered to the employee  at\nthe  time  when the order of termination is served  on\thim.\nThere  is  no  difficulty in  the  calculation\tbecause\t the\npayment\t is  to be made at the same rates at  which  he\t was\ndrawing\t them  immediately  before the\ttermination  of\t his\nservices.'  The\t fore, there is no merit in  the  contention\nthat  it  would be impossible for the  authorities  to\tgive\neffect\t to   th  proviso,  if\tpayment\t was  to   be\tmade\nsimultaneously with the service on the employee of the order\nof termination. [532 H; 533 A-D]\n(4)The words of the rule construed in the <a href=\"\/doc\/1902920\/\">State of U.P. v.\nDinanath Rai, C.A. No.<\/a> 1734\/68 dt. 11-10-1968, though  'some\nwhat similar to the words of r. 5 only entitled the employee\nto pay for the period of the notice but did not lay down any\ncondition as to when the payment was to be made. [534 F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1706  of<br \/>\n1971.\n<\/p>\n<p> Appeal\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated<br \/>\nJanuary\t 5,  1971  of the Kerala High Court  in\t Civil\tWrit<br \/>\nAppeal No. 534 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">531<\/span><\/p>\n<p>R.   H. Dhebar, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>A.   S.\t R.  Chart,  A. K. Gupta, S. C. Agarwal\t and  V.  J.<br \/>\nFrancis, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nMtter,\tJ.  The only question involved in  this\t appeal\t is,<br \/>\nwhether\t the order dated September 25, 1968 terminating\t the<br \/>\nservices of the respondent, a temporary Government  servant,<br \/>\nwas  in\t accordance  with the provisions of Rule  5  of\t the<br \/>\nCentral Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965,\t hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the &#8216;Rules&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The   services\tof  the\t respondent  appear  to\t have\tbeen<br \/>\nterminated  on\tthe basis of the directive  contained  in  a<br \/>\ncircular  dated\t 12th September 1968 that action  should  be<br \/>\ntaken against every employee who absented himself from\tduty<br \/>\non  19th September, 1968.  No contention was raised  at\t any<br \/>\nstage that no action could be taken under Rule, 5. This said<br \/>\nrule reads :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;5.Termination of temporary service,-<br \/>\n\t       (1)(a)\tThe  services  of  a   temporary<br \/>\n\t      Government servantwho  is\t not  in   quasi-<br \/>\n\t      permanent\t  service   shall   be\t liable\t  to<br \/>\n\t      termination at any time by a notice in writing<br \/>\n\t      given either by the Government servant to\t the<br \/>\n\t      appointing  authority  or\t by  the  appointing<br \/>\n\t      authority to the Government servant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)the  period of such notice shall be  one<br \/>\n\t      month;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided\t that  the  services  of  any\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      Government servant may be terminated forthwith<br \/>\n\t      by  payment to him of a sum equivalent to\t the<br \/>\n\t      amount  of  his pay plus\tallowances  for\t the<br \/>\n\t      period  of  the notice at the  same  rates  at<br \/>\n\t      which  he was drawing them immediately  before<br \/>\n\t      the  termination of his services, or,  as\t the<br \/>\n\t      case  may\t be, for the period  by\t which\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      notice falls short of one month.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>\t      xx\t\t   xx\t\t\t  xx\n\t      xx.\"\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>It  is: admitted that payment of the salary  and  allowances<br \/>\nwas  not  made to the respondent on  25th  September,  1968.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>According  to,\tthe respondent the  disbursing\tofficer\t was<br \/>\nintimated  about the order of termination only on  the\t28th<br \/>\nSeptember  when he was supplied with the,  necessary  funds.<br \/>\nAs  against this it was alleged in the counter affidavit  to<br \/>\nthe writ petition filed by the respondent in the High  Court<br \/>\nthat  one month&#8217;s pay and allowances had been sent by  money<br \/>\norder to the respondent.  The question is,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">532<\/span><br \/>\nwhether the order of termination of service can be sustained<br \/>\nbecause\t of absence of payment on the 25th  September.\t The<br \/>\norder  was  quashed by a learned single Judge  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt and this was upheld by a Division Bench in appeal.<br \/>\nApart  from the authorities which were cited at the Bar,  it<br \/>\nappears\t to  us\t that  the  rule  is  capable  of  the\tonly<br \/>\ninterpretation\tthat the order of termination can be  upheld<br \/>\nif  the requisite amount in terms of the rule was paid\tinto<br \/>\nthe  hands of the employee of made available to him  at\t the<br \/>\nsame time as he was served with the order.  Rule, 5 (1 ) (a)<br \/>\ngives the Government as well as the employee a right to\t put<br \/>\nan end to the service by a notice in writing.  Under rule  1\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) the period prescribed for such notice is one month.\t The<br \/>\nproviso\t to  sub-r.  (b) however  gives\t the  Government  an<br \/>\nadditional  right  in  that  it\t gives\tan  option  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  not to retain the services of the employee\ttill<br \/>\nthe expiry of the period of the notice : if it so chooses to<br \/>\nterminate the service at any time it can do so forthwith &#8220;by<br \/>\npayment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his\t pay<br \/>\nplus  allowances  for the period of the notice at  the\tsame<br \/>\nrate  at  which he was drawing them immediately\t before\t the<br \/>\ntermination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the<br \/>\nperiod\tby which such notice falls short of one\t month.&#8221;  At<br \/>\nthe risk of repetition, we may note that the operative words<br \/>\nof  the\t proviso are &#8220;the services of  any  such  Government<br \/>\nservant may be terminated forthwith by payment&#8221;.  To put the<br \/>\nmatter\tin  a nutshell, to be effective the  termination  of<br \/>\nservice\t has  to  be simultaneous with the  payment  to\t the<br \/>\nemployee  of whatever is due to him.  We need not  pause  to<br \/>\nconsider  the  question as to what would be  the  effect  if<br \/>\nthere was a bonafide mistake as to the amount which is to be<br \/>\npaid.\tThe rule does not lend itself to the  interpretation<br \/>\nthat the termination of service becomes effective as soon as<br \/>\nthe  order is served on the Government servant\tirrespective<br \/>\nof  the question as to when the payment due to him is to  be<br \/>\nmade.  If that was the intention of the framers of the rule,<br \/>\nthe  proviso  would have been differently  worded.   As\t has<br \/>\noften  been said that if &#8220;the precise words used  are  plain<br \/>\nand  unambiguous,  we are bound to construe them  in  their<br \/>\nordinary sense&#8230;&#8230; and not to limit plain words in an\t Act<br \/>\nof Parliament by considerations of policy, if it be  policy,<br \/>\nas to which minds may differ and as to which decisions.\t may<br \/>\nvary&#8221;.-see  Craies on Statute Law, Sixth Edition,  pages  86<br \/>\nand 92.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  is not for us to enter into a discussion as to  why\t the<br \/>\nproviso\t was  framed as we find it.  It was argued  that  it<br \/>\nwould,\t in  the  ordinary  course  of\tthings,\t be   almost<br \/>\nimpossible for the authorities to give effect to the proviso<br \/>\nif  payment  has  to  be  made at  the\ttime  the  order  of<br \/>\ntermination  is\t served on the employee.  It  was  submitted<br \/>\nthat before any payment can be made by Government,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">533<\/span><br \/>\nsanction  has to be taken and some time must  elapse  before<br \/>\nthe necessary procedure is complied with and money  obtained<br \/>\neither\tfrom the treasury or a cheque made out to cover\t the<br \/>\namount due to the employee.  It was also argued that if\t the<br \/>\nconstruction  given by the High Court to the rule is  to  be<br \/>\nmaintained,  the appointing authority could never  ask,\t the<br \/>\nemployee  to  go  at once even when it\tfound  that  it\t was<br \/>\nnecessary in the interest of Government to require him to do<br \/>\nso.   It  is  difficult to contemplate a case  in  which  an<br \/>\nappointing authority has to make up his mind on the spur  of<br \/>\nthe moment that a particular employee should be asked to  go<br \/>\nimmediately.  Normally a Government employee is not asked to<br \/>\ngo  unless  some  complaint is made  against  him  for\tsome<br \/>\nirregularities\tdetected  in  his  work.   This\t is   always<br \/>\nfollowed by some enquiry into his conduct, however brief, as<br \/>\nit  is\tonly as a result of an enquiry\tthat  the  authority<br \/>\nmakes up its mind that it would not be in public interest to<br \/>\nretain\tthe service of the employee any longer.\t Within\t the<br \/>\ntime  which  is\t taken\tfor  such  deliberation\t i.e.,\t the<br \/>\npreliminary  enquiry, direction can certainly be given\tthat<br \/>\nthe  pay and allowances of the government servant  concerned<br \/>\nshould\tbe  calculated so that it could be  offered  to\t the<br \/>\nemployee at the time when the order of termination is served<br \/>\non  him.   There  can be no difficulty\tin  the\t calculation<br \/>\nbecause\t the  payment is to be made &#8220;at the  same  rates  at<br \/>\nwhich he was drawing them immediately before the termination<br \/>\nof his services.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It  was suggested on behalf of the respondent that the\tcon-<br \/>\nstruction  of the rule should be such as would mitigate\t the<br \/>\nrigour\tof an order of termination inasmuch as where  notice<br \/>\nof  a full month is given the Government servant knows\tthat<br \/>\nhe will have to find some other employment without delay and<br \/>\nhe can make his arrangements accordingly; but if he is to be<br \/>\nasked  to  leave at once and to depend on the mercy  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment as to when it will pay him for the period of\t the<br \/>\nnotice,\t it would be very hard on the employee.\t We do,\t not<br \/>\nthink  it  necessary to express any view as to\twhether\t the<br \/>\nrule was so framed on account of any such reason and we must<br \/>\ngive effect to the plain meaning of the words of the rule.<br \/>\nOur  attention was drawn to a decision of this\tCourt  which<br \/>\nhad been cited on behalf of the appellant in the High Court-<br \/>\nThe state of uttar Pradesh v. Dinanath Rai(1) There the rule<br \/>\nwas  differently  worded.   The rule in\t that  case  ran  as<br \/>\nfollows<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;In  exercise of the powers conferred  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution  of<br \/>\n\t      India, the Governor of U.P. is pleased to make<br \/>\n\t      the following general rule<br \/>\n\t      (1)   Civil Appeal No. 1734 of 1968 dated 11th<br \/>\n\t      October, 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      534<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t      regulating  the  termination  of\tservices  of<br \/>\n\t      temporary Government servants<br \/>\n\t      (1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in<br \/>\n\t      any existing rules and orders on the  subject,<br \/>\n\t      the  services  of\t a  Government\tservant\t  in<br \/>\n\t      temporary\t  service   shall   be\t liable\t  to<br \/>\n\t      termination  at any time by notice in  writing<br \/>\n\t      given either by the Government servant to\t the<br \/>\n\t      appointing  authority,  or by  the  appointing<br \/>\n\t      authority to the Government servant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (2)The  period  of such notice  shall  be\t one<br \/>\n\t      month given either by the appointing authority<br \/>\n\t      to   the\t Government  servant,  or   by\t the<br \/>\n\t      Government    servant   to   the\t  appointing<br \/>\n\t      authority, provided that in the case of notice<br \/>\n\t      of  the  appointing authority the\t latter\t may<br \/>\n\t      substitute  for  the  whole or  part  of\tthis<br \/>\n\t      period of notice pay in lieu thereof; provided<br \/>\n\t      further\tthat  it  shall\t be  open   to\t the<br \/>\n\t      appointing  authority to relieve a  Government<br \/>\n\t      servant  without any notice or  accept  notice<br \/>\n\t      for  a shorter period, without  requiring\t the<br \/>\n\t      Government servant to pay any penalty in\tlieu<br \/>\n\t      of notice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      In that case this Court had observed<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;The rule does not say that the pay should  be<br \/>\n\t      given  in\t cash or by cheque at the  time\t the<br \/>\n\t      notice   is  issued.   Knowing  the  way\t the<br \/>\n\t      Governments are run, it would be difficult  to<br \/>\n\t      ascribe  this  intention\tto  the\t rule-making<br \/>\n\t      authority.    There  is  no  doubt  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      Government  servant would be entitled  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      pay in lieu of notice but this would be in the<br \/>\n\t      ordinary course.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>No  doubt the language of that rule is somewhat\t similar  to<br \/>\nthe  words of rule 5 but there is an  essential\t difference.<br \/>\nThe rule only means that the pay for 30 days or less may  be<br \/>\nsubstituted  for service for the period of the\tnotice.\t  In<br \/>\nother  words, the rule entities the employee to pay for\t the<br \/>\nperiod of the notice only without laying down any  condition<br \/>\nas to when the payment is to be. given.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  this  case,\t as  we\t have  already\tnoted,\t&#8220;termination<br \/>\nforthwith&#8221;  is to be &#8220;by payment to the Government  servant&#8221;<br \/>\nof  the\t sum  mentioned.   Payment is  a  condition  of\t the<br \/>\ntermination  of service forthwith.  The, facts of this\tcase<br \/>\nshow  that the circular which formed the basis of the  order<br \/>\nof  termination\t was  issued  on  the  12th  September;\t the<br \/>\nemployee, it would appear, had absented himself from duty on<br \/>\nthe  19th September.  The appointing authority had at  least<br \/>\nsix  days  within  &#8216;which  time,  the  amount  due  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondent could have been calculated.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">535<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In  our\t view,\tthe decisions in  Seshavataram\tA  State  of<br \/>\nHyderabad(1)  and  Venkataswami v. Director  of\t Commerce  &amp;<br \/>\nIndustries(2) do not help the appellant.<br \/>\nThe appeal is therefore dismissed and in terms of the  order<br \/>\ngranting special leave, the appellant must pay the costs  of<br \/>\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t       Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)  [1959]-2 L.L.J. 227.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)  [1959]-2 L.L.J. 702.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">536<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Senior Superintendent,R.M.S &#8230; vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1487, 1972 SCR (3) 530 Author: G Mitter Bench: Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,R.M.S COCHIN &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: K. V. GOPINATH, SORTER DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/02\/1972 BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. CITATION: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Senior Superintendent,R.M.S ... vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S ... vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-12T10:01:11+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\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S &#8230; vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T10:01:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972\"},\"wordCount\":1923,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972\",\"name\":\"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S ... vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T10:01:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S &#8230; vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S ... vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S ... vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-12T10:01:11+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\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S &#8230; vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972","datePublished":"1972-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T10:01:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972"},"wordCount":1923,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972","name":"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S ... vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T10:01:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senior-superintendentr-m-s-vs-k-v-gopinath-sorter-on-18-february-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Senior Superintendent,R.M.S &#8230; vs K. V. Gopinath, Sorter on 18 February, 1972"}]},{"@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\/151013","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=151013"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151013\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}