{"id":152557,"date":"2008-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-23T03:38:39","modified_gmt":"2016-10-22T22:08:39","slug":"vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Nishita Mhatre<\/div>\n
vss\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                            WRIT PETITION NO.3524 OF 1997\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n      Vice-Chancellor,\n      Mahatma Phule Agricultural\n      University, Ahmednagar & Ors.              ... Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                  V\/s.\n\n      Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr.               ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n      Mrs.Neeta Karnik for Petitioners\n      Mr.N.A. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1\n\n                                     CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                J<\/p>\n
                                     DATED: 8.8.2008<\/p>\n
      ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
      .           The    judgment    challenged in this        petition          had<\/p>\n
      been    delivered by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune on<\/p>\n
      31.3.1997        in    complaint (ULP) No.579 of 1993.            By     this<\/p>\n
      judgment, the Industrial Court has allowed the complaint<\/p>\n
      filed      by the workman and has held that the              petitioners<\/p>\n
      have    committed an unfair labour practices under Items 6<\/p>\n
      and    9    of    Schedule    IV of the MRTU &      PULP       Act.        The<\/p>\n
      petitioners have been directed to regularise the workman<\/p>\n
      by    making her permanent from 15.12.1993 i.e.                 the      date<\/p>\n
      of filing of the complaint and to pay her the difference<\/p>\n
      in wages from that date.\n<\/p>\n
      2.          The    undisputed facts in the present case are as<\/p>\n
      follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:40:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    The    petitioner recruited the workman in 1981.                     A common<\/p>\n
    seniority        list was released on 19.1.1983.              The      workman<\/p>\n
    was    at    serial      No.221    in   this    list.       In     1987,        31<\/p>\n
    employees        were    regularised     in    service.         During        the<\/p>\n
    period      between      3.9.1990    and 3.4.1993,        several         other<\/p>\n
    daily    rated workmen were regularised.               According to the<\/p>\n
    petitioner,        these    regularisations        were       effected          in<\/p>\n
    accordance with the group-wise seniority list maintained<\/p>\n
    by    the    petitioners after discussions with                 the      Labour<\/p>\n
    Welfare      Committee.         The common seniority list of                1986<\/p>\n
    was    rearranged        into    group-wise     seniority         lists       and<\/p>\n
    regularisation and permanency was granted to the workmen<\/p>\n
    on those lists in accordance with their seniority.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Aggrieved      by the decision of the petitioners in<\/p>\n
    promoting her juniors, the workman filed complaint (ULP)<\/p>\n
    No.579      of    1993 alleging unfair labour practices                   under<\/p>\n
    Items    5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU &                        PULP<\/p>\n
    Act.     The      contention      raised   by the      workman         in     her<\/p>\n
    complaint was that she had completed 240 days in service<\/p>\n
    since    her appointment in 1981 but had been continued as<\/p>\n
    a temporary daily rated employee.               She further contended<\/p>\n
    that    by    continuing her on a temporary basis for                     years<\/p>\n
    together,        the    petitioners     had    deprived       her      of     the<\/p>\n
    benefits      granted      to    permanent employees such              as     the<\/p>\n
    time-scale,        paid holidays, uniforms, leave, bonus, etc.<\/p>\n
    She further contended that the petitioners continued her<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:40:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    as    a temporary workman with the object of depriving her<\/p>\n
    of    the    status and privileges of          permanent           employees.\n<\/p>\n
    She    therefore        sought    directions from         the      Court       for<\/p>\n
    regularising        her    on the establishment from 1981.                     She<\/p>\n
    further sought the difference in wages payable to her on<\/p>\n
    account of her regularisation in service.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          The    petitioners through their written statement<\/p>\n
    opposed      the complaint and contended that because of the<\/p>\n
    group-wise seniority lists being maintained, persons who<\/p>\n
    were    made      permanent were in other departments and                      not<\/p>\n
    the    garden<\/p>\n
                       department where the workman was                 employed.\n<\/p>\n
    It    was    also      contended    that the    petitioners             had      no<\/p>\n
    authority      to      create any new permanent post and it                    was<\/p>\n
    for    the    Government        to sanction the creation              of     such<\/p>\n
    posts.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          Evidence      –    both oral and documentary              was      led<\/p>\n
    before      the    Industrial      Court.     The     workman         examined<\/p>\n
    herself       while      the    Office     Superintendent             of       the<\/p>\n
    Establishment department of the Petitioners was examined<\/p>\n
    on    behalf      of    the    petitioners.    The      workman         in     her<\/p>\n
    cross-examination          has admitted that during the 10 years<\/p>\n
    prior    to her evidence being recorded, the employees                           of<\/p>\n
    the    petitioners were made permanent section-wise and in<\/p>\n
    accordance        with    their    seniority.    Thus, it           has      been<\/p>\n
    admitted      that      the    section-wise seniority            lists       were<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:40:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                      : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    maintained      and    those    who   were    made    permanent          were<\/p>\n
    granted      these posts in accordance with their respective<\/p>\n
    seniority.      She, however, has denied the suggestion that<\/p>\n
    employees      have    not been promoted on the basis               of     the<\/p>\n
    common    seniority list.        The witness of the          Petitioners<\/p>\n
    has    admitted    that    the Petitioners       had     directed          the<\/p>\n
    Establishment      department to maintain a common seniority<\/p>\n
    list    of    class    IV workers.     However, he       continued           to<\/p>\n
    insist    that    permanency was granted in accordance                   with<\/p>\n
    the    Department-wise        seniority lists maintained by                the<\/p>\n
    petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        The    Industrial      Court   has concluded          that       the<\/p>\n
    Respondent      workman    has completed 240 days            in     service<\/p>\n
    with the petitioners.          It has been held that after 1981,<\/p>\n
    the    respondent workman was in continuous employment and<\/p>\n
    that juniors to her had been made permanent, contrary to<\/p>\n
    the    seniority      list.    The Industrial Court,           therefore,<\/p>\n
    concluded      that the petitioners have committed an unfair<\/p>\n
    labour    practice      under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV                   of<\/p>\n
    the    MRTU    & PULP Act.      As regards Items 5 and            10,      the<\/p>\n
    Industrial      Court    observed     that the    workman         had      not<\/p>\n
    proved any unfair labour practice under these items.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        Mrs.Karnik,      learned advocate appearing for                  the<\/p>\n
    petitioners,      submits      that   the    Industrial        Court       has<\/p>\n
    misdirected      itself by considering the seniority list of<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:40:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                      : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    1986    which    was a common seniority list.                 She      submits<\/p>\n
    that    pursuant      to negotiations with the Labour                  Welfare<\/p>\n
    Committee, group-wise or department-wise seniority lists<\/p>\n
    were maintained.        Fortuitously, according to Mrs.Karnik,<\/p>\n
    the    sanctioned posts fell vacant in certain departments<\/p>\n
    and    the seniority lists pertaining to those departments<\/p>\n
    were    considered      and    employees     were      regularised            She<\/p>\n
    further      takes exception to the order of the                  Industrial<\/p>\n
    Court    as it has been observed that the workman is found<\/p>\n
    at    serial    No.130 in the seniority list of                 1986.         The<\/p>\n
    learned       advocate      submits   that     this       is       factually<\/p>\n
    incorrect<\/p>\n
                   since the workman is placed at serial No.221.\n<\/p>\n
    She further submits that no juniors in the Establishment<\/p>\n
    department,      where      the workman was employed, have                  been<\/p>\n
    made    permanent overriding the claim of the workman.                          It<\/p>\n
    is    only    those who were employed in         other          Departments<\/p>\n
    where    the    sanctioned posts fell vacant who                  were      made<\/p>\n
    permanent.       She    relies on the judgment of the                  Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court     in    the    case    of   Mahatma    Phule          Agricultrual<\/p>\n
    University & ors.        v\/s.    Nashik Zilla Sheti Kamgar Union<\/p>\n
    &    Ors.,    2001    III    CLR 4.   She points         out      that      this<\/p>\n
    judgment was in respect of the petitioner university and<\/p>\n
    all    the directions regarding permanency and payment                          of<\/p>\n
    benefits      of permanency contained in that judgment                      have<\/p>\n
    been followed scrupulously by the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        Mr.Kulkarni        on the other hand submits that                   the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:40:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioners      cannot claim that there were no                 sanctioned<\/p>\n
    posts    available        for    making     workmen     permanent.              He<\/p>\n
    submits    that      the    seniority list of 1986           which         is    a<\/p>\n
    common    seniority list must be considered.                 If that list<\/p>\n
    is    taken    into account, the petitioners have                 committed<\/p>\n
    unfair    labour practices by regularising persons who are<\/p>\n
    listed    below      the    workman in the seniority             list.          He<\/p>\n
    submits that the Petitioners cannot claim that they were<\/p>\n
    unable    to    create posts in view of the judgment of                      the<\/p>\n
    learned    Single Judge of this Court (Khanwilkar, J.)                          in<\/p>\n
    Divisional      Manager,        Forest Development Corporation                  of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Ltd., Nashik v\/s.              Chimna Arjun Jadhav, 2001<\/p>\n
    III    CLR 57 wherein it has been held that the Industrial<\/p>\n
    Court can under section 30 of the Act take such positive<\/p>\n
    action     as       is    required     including        directing            the<\/p>\n
    petitioners      to      create    posts in order to         reinstate           a<\/p>\n
    workman or to regularise him in service after completion<\/p>\n
    of 240 days.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        In    my    opinion,      there    is no need        for      me      to<\/p>\n
    consider the judgment in the case of Divisional Manager,<\/p>\n
    Forest    Department        Corproation (supra) because               of     the<\/p>\n
    judgment       of    the    Supreme       Court   in    Mahatma            Phule<\/p>\n
    Agricultural        University’s      case (supra).        The       decision<\/p>\n
    was   rendered       in respect of the       Petitioner-University.\n<\/p>\n
    The   facts     involved        in that case were similar             to     the<\/p>\n
    facts in the present case.            The workman had claimed in a<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:40:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                      : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    complaint       filed under the MRTU & PULP Act under section<\/p>\n
    6   of Schedule IV that they should be made permanent and<\/p>\n
    that     they    should be paid wages, etc.          as if they           were<\/p>\n
    permanent.        The    Supreme    Court while      considering            the<\/p>\n
    submissions       of both the parties held that the status of<\/p>\n
    permanency       could    not be granted to the         workman.            The<\/p>\n
    Supreme     Court    further held that the workman               could        at<\/p>\n
    best     claim    benefits of permanency but           not      permanency<\/p>\n
    itself since it involves creation of posts which had not<\/p>\n
    been     sanctioned.      The Supreme Court therefore concluded<\/p>\n
    that     about    2000    workmen who were not covered               by     the<\/p>\n
    award     of<\/p>\n
                    the Industrial Tribunal of 1.4.1985 would                     be<\/p>\n
    entitled to the same wages on the basis of equal pay for<\/p>\n
    equal     work.     Permanency was denied to the              workmen         in<\/p>\n
    that case.\n<\/p>\n
    10.        In view of this decision, it is obvious that the<\/p>\n
    workman     would not be entitled to permanency unless                      the<\/p>\n
    post     itself is sanctioned.        Admittedly, the workman has<\/p>\n
    been     made    permanent in 2000 and in fact she has                  since<\/p>\n
    retired.       The question therefore is whether she would be<\/p>\n
    entitled       to any monetary relief from the year 1993                    the<\/p>\n
    date     from    which    the    Industrial     Court       granted         her<\/p>\n
    permanency,       till 2000.     With respect, I agree with                 the<\/p>\n
    view     taken    by Khanwilkar, J.      in     Divisional         Manager,<\/p>\n
    Forest    Development       Corporation    of    Maharashtra              Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
    (supra).         However,   in     the present case,         the     Supreme<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:40:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                       : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court,     in respect of the same University, has held that<\/p>\n
    unless the posts are sanctioned by the State Government,<\/p>\n
    the    workmen     cannot be made permanent.           Therefore,            it<\/p>\n
    would    not be appropriate to go beyond this judgment                       in<\/p>\n
    the case of Mahatma Phule Agricultural University’s case<\/p>\n
    (supra).        The workmen would not be entitled to monetary<\/p>\n
    benefits        until    she   was    made    permanent        against        a<\/p>\n
    sanctioned post.\n<\/p>\n
    11.        In    the    result,    the    petition    succeeds.            The<\/p>\n
    impugned     judgment      and order is quashed to           the      extent<\/p>\n
    that<\/p>\n
            it grants permanency from 1993.           In any event, the<\/p>\n
    petitioners       have already extended the benefits from the<\/p>\n
    year 2000 to the workmen.\n<\/p>\n
    12.        Rule    made absolute accordingly.          No order as to<\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:40:28 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008 Bench: Nishita Mhatre vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3524 OF 1997 Vice-Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Agricultural University, Ahmednagar & Ors. … Petitioners V\/s. Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr. … Respondents Mrs.Neeta Karnik for […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008 - 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\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-22T22:08:39+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T22:08:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1516,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T22:08:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008 - 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\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-22T22:08:39+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T22:08:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008"},"wordCount":1516,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008","name":"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T22:08:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vice-chancellor-vs-shantabai-genaba-chive-anr-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vice-Chancellor vs Shantabai Genaba Chive & Anr on 8 August, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/152557","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=152557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}