{"id":153110,"date":"2010-01-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-30T00:04:29","modified_gmt":"2019-03-29T18:34:29","slug":"the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 1592 of 2007(E)\n\n\n1. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. A.M.SHANAVAS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :06\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                  C.R.\n\n\n\n                      K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\n                                       &\n                          C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n                   ---------------------------------------------\n                          W.A. NO. 1592 OF2007\n                   ---------------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       The point that arises for decision in this case is whether on the junior<\/p>\n
getting grade promotion, can the senior claim the same pay as his junior,<\/p>\n
though the latter has not completed the required number of years for grade<\/p>\n
promotion. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The<\/p>\n
first respondent herein was the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The first respondent<\/p>\n
joined the service of the first appellant as Draftsman\/Overseer\/Surveyor<\/p>\n
Grade III\/Tracer on 13.5.1985. He was promoted as Draftsman\/<\/p>\n
Overseer\/Surveyor Grade II with effect from 13.5.1987. Still later, he was<\/p>\n
promoted as Draftsman\/Overseer\/Surveyor Grade I with effect from<\/p>\n
14.5.1988.    One Smt. Suprabha,who joined the service of the first<\/p>\n
appellant as Draftsman\/Overseer\/Surveyor Grade II on 4.3.1988 and<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
who was junior to the respondent, was promoted as Draftsman\/<\/p>\n
Overseer\/Surveyor Grade I on 4.3.1990. On completion of eight years in<\/p>\n
the said cadre, she became eligible for grade promotion in the scale of pay<\/p>\n
of Assistant Engineer.       Since she opted to come over to the scale of<\/p>\n
Assistant Engineer on 1.11.1998, she was granted higher grade with<\/p>\n
effect from the said date. As a result of the grade promotion, she started<\/p>\n
drawing higher pay than the first respondent.           The first respondent,<\/p>\n
therefore, filed a representation claiming stepping up of his pay equal to<\/p>\n
that of Smt. Suprabha. The competent authority of the first appellant<\/p>\n
considered the said claim and rejected it, by Ext.P2 communication dated<\/p>\n
18.5.2002. Challenging that order, the Writ Petition was filed.         The<\/p>\n
appellants    filed a counter affidavit, stating that the first respondent\/<\/p>\n
petitioner is not eligible for stepping up of his pay. They also produced<\/p>\n
Ext.R1(a) reply, furnished to the first appellant by the Deputy Director,<\/p>\n
Local Fund Audit, for the clarification sought by them regarding the<\/p>\n
eligibility of the first respondent for stepping up of his pay.<\/p>\n
      3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, took the view<\/p>\n
that  it   is   highly    unjust  to   allow   the  situation  of   the first<\/p>\n
respondent\/petitioner drawing lesser pay than his junior, Smt. Suprabha<\/p>\n
and quashed Ext.P2 and Ext.R1(a), even though there was no specific<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
pleading for quashing the latter order.      The learned Single Judge also<\/p>\n
ordered to step up the pay of the first respondent\/petitioner to the level of<\/p>\n
the pay drawn by his junior, Smt. Suprabha with effect from the date on<\/p>\n
which she started drawing higher pay.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.  We heard the learned counsel on both sides.         The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants submitted that the rules and orders governing<\/p>\n
fixation of pay do not permit stepping up of the pay of the first respondent<\/p>\n
to make it    equal to that of his junior, who got grade promotion as<\/p>\n
Assistant Engineer. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the<\/p>\n
other hand, submitted that in every respect the first respondent and Smt.<\/p>\n
Suprabha were on the same footing in Grade II and Grade I and the first<\/p>\n
respondent was also senior to Smt. Suprabha. Therefore, when the junior<\/p>\n
starts drawing higher pay, the first respondent is entitled to have his pay<\/p>\n
stepped up and therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is<\/p>\n
legal and valid. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
first respondent relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India<\/p>\n
v. P. Jagdish<\/a> [(1997) 3 SCC 176] and also a decision of the Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in Kamala Devi v. K.S.F.E. Ltd.,<\/a> [2002(1) K.L.T.<\/p>\n
157].\n<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
      5. The concept of junior-senior fixation finds statutory recognition<\/p>\n
in Rule 28A of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. Ruling No.1 under it<\/p>\n
permits stepping up of the pay of the senior, who draws lesser pay than<\/p>\n
his junior. The said ruling reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “In cases where the application of the rule
\n            would give rise to anomalies in as much as an
\n            officer officiating in a higher post could get his
\n            pay refixed at a stage higher than the pay drawn
\n            by another who stands confirmed in the higher
\n            post on the same scale of pay, the anomaly will
\n            be removed by refixing the pay of the senior
\n            officer at the stage equal to that fixed for the
\n            junior officer in the higher post, the orders of
\n            refixation being issued by the Competent
\n            Authority under Rule 34, Part I, Kerala Service
\n            Rules. The refixation of pay in such cases will be
\n            made subject to the following conditions:-<\/p>\n
                   (a)   Both the junior and senior officers
\n            should belong to the same cadre and the post in
\n            which they have been promoted or confirmed, as
\n            the case may be, should be identical and in the
\n            same cadre.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (b) The scale of pay of the lower post in
\n            which they would have drawn their pay but for
\n            their promotion or confirmation should be
\n            identical.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   ( c) The anomaly should be directly as a
\n            result of the application of Rule 28A.         For
\n            example, if the junior officer draws from time to
\n            time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue
\n            of fixation of pay under the normal rules or any
\n            advance increment granted to him, the provision<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
            contained in this ruling should not be invoked to
\n            step up the pay of the senior officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (d)   The refixation of pay of the senior
\n            officer should be done with effect from the date
\n            of refixation of pay of the junior officer. The
\n            next increment of the senior officer will however
\n            be drawn on the date on which it would have
\n            fallen due but for this refixation of pay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By G.O.(P) No.110\/84\/Fin dated 20.2.1984, further clarification has been<\/p>\n
issued. The said Government Order reads as follows:<\/p>\n
                  “In the Government Order read above,
\n            orders have been issued to the effect that the
\n            rules of fixation of pay as laid down in Rules 28
\n            A, Part I, Kerala Service Rules will not be
\n            applicable to cases of promotions\/appointments
\n            made from      posts carrying a scale of pay the
\n            minimum of which exceeds Rs.1300.            It is
\n            observed that consequent on the implementation
\n            of the above Government Order, certain officers
\n            promoted on or after 29.6.1983 are entitled to pay
\n            higher than that drawn by their Seniors who
\n            could not get the benefit of the Government
\n            Order having been promoted prior to 29-6-1983.
\n            In order to remove the anomaly of Junior drawing
\n            higher pay than the Senior consequent on the
\n            implementation of the above orders, Government
\n            are pleased to order that in cases where a Junior
\n            happens to draw on promotion on or after 29-6-
\n            1983 pay higher than that drawn by his Senior
\n            who got promotion prior to 29-6-1983, solely on
\n            account of the implementation of the orders in
\n            the Government Order read above, the pay of
\n            such Senior in the post to which he has been
\n            promoted in the higher scale will be refixed at the<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
             same stage as that of the Junior with effect from
\n             the date of fixation of pay of the Junior subject to
\n             the following conditions:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    i. Both the Junior and the Senior Officers
\n                        should belong to the same cadre and the
\n                        posts in which they have been promoted
\n                        should be identical and in the same
\n                        cadre.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    ii. The scale of pay of the lower post should
\n                        be identical.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    iii.If the Junior Officer draws from time to
\n                        time a higher rate of pay than the Senior
\n                        in the lower post by virtue of fixation of
\n                        pay under     the normal rules or any
\n                        advance increment granted to him, the
\n                        benefit of stepping up the pay of the
\n                        Senior Officer shall not be admissible.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Going by the above orders, we find that the case of the first respondent is<\/p>\n
not covered    by them. Whenever pay revision orders are issued and<\/p>\n
anomaly of the junior drawing higher pay arises as a result of fixation of<\/p>\n
pay, specific provisions are made therein to rectify the said anomaly. In<\/p>\n
this case, the alleged anomaly did not arise as a result of implementation<\/p>\n
of pay revision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6. It is well settled that there is no universal principle that the<\/p>\n
senior in a cadre must always draw higher pay than the junior. On valid<\/p>\n
grounds, it may so happen that the junior may draw higher pay than the<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
senior. In this case, the junior, Smt. Suprabha completed eight years<\/p>\n
service in the post of Overseer Grade I. Therefore, she is entitled to get<\/p>\n
the scale of pay of the promotion post of Assistant Engineer.   The time<\/p>\n
bound higher grade relevant in this case was the one contained in G.O.(P)<\/p>\n
No. 3000\/98\/Fin dated 25.11.1998. The relevant portion of the said<\/p>\n
Government Order dealing with higher grade reads as follows:<\/p>\n
            Promotion Prospects<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.(1)(a) Ratio\/Percentage based higher grade.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The   existing   ratio\/higher  grade  and    the
\n       improved ratio to the various categories are indicated
\n       at the appropriate places under each Department. The
\n       newly introduced ratio\/improved ratio promotion will
\n       have effect from the date of this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)    Time bound higher grade promotion\n            scheme:-\n\n<\/pre>\n
              (1)   The existing time bound higher grade
\n        promotion scheme and the grades to be assigned on
\n        revision of pay scales under the scheme, will be
\n        modified as specified in the Table I and II given
\n        below [with effect from the date of order.]<\/p>\n
          (2)   Employees who remain in their entry posts on
\n        scale of pay ranging from Rs.2610-3680 to Rs.4600-
\n        7125 will be granted three higher grades on
\n        completion of the period of qualifying service in their
\n        posts as follows with the scale of pay indicated in
\n        Table-I<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (i)   The first higher grade on completion<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
                       of 10 years service in the entry post.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (ii)  The    second     higher   grade   on
\n                       completion of either 8 years of service
\n                       in the first promoted post or a total
\n                       service of 18 years in the entry post
\n                       and the first regular promotion
\n                       post\/time bound higher grade together,
\n                       whichever is earlier.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (iii) The third higher grade on completion
\n                       of     23 years of total service in the
\n                       entry post and the regular promotion
\n                       post(s)\/ time bound higher grade(s)
\n                       together.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (iv)  A fourth time bound higher grade in
\n                       the    scale of Rs.3350-5275 will be
\n                       allowed to Class IV employees on
\n                       completion of 30 years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As per the above quoted time bound higher grade promotion scheme, Smt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Suprabha is entitled to get the scale of pay of Assistant Engineer with<\/p>\n
effect from 3.3.1998. But, she opted to come over to the scale with effect<\/p>\n
from 1.11.1998. If the claim of the first respondent is allowed, it will have<\/p>\n
the effect of granting him the higher grade of Assistant Engineer, even<\/p>\n
though he is ineligible for the same, in terms of the above quoted higher<\/p>\n
grade promotion scheme. In fact, in this case, the anomaly of the junior<\/p>\n
drawing higher pay did not arise out of fixation under Rule 28A of Part I<\/p>\n
of the Kerala Service Rules or by reason of fixation of pay pursuant to pay<\/p>\n
revision order. It was as a result of grant of higher grade to Smt. Suprabha<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
on account of her completion of eight years’ service. After 1.11.1998,<\/p>\n
Smt. Suprabha went to the scale of pay of Assistant Engineer, whereas the<\/p>\n
first respondent continued in the same scale of pay of Overseer Grade I.<\/p>\n
As a result, the disparity in pay arose. The same arises out of the scheme<\/p>\n
of time bound higher grade promotion.        By pressing into service the<\/p>\n
abstract principle of equal pay for equal work arising from Article 14 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India, the first respondent cannot claim pay at the rate<\/p>\n
drawn by his junior. We cannot re-write the time bound higher grade<\/p>\n
promotion scheme by saying that whenever a junior gets grade promotion,<\/p>\n
the senior should also be given the higher grade to satisfy the principle of<\/p>\n
equality. The decisions relied on by the first respondent also do not have<\/p>\n
any application to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge is reversed and the Original Petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                      (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                      (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
\n                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
sp\/<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007    10<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    C.R.\n<\/p>\n
                          K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
\n                                    &
\n                          C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                          W.A.NO.1592\/2007<\/p>\n
                          JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                          6th January, 2010<\/p>\n
W.A. NO. 1592\/2007    11<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 1592 of 2007(E) 1. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT … Petitioner 2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, Vs 1. A.M.SHANAVAS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI For Respondent :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR The […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-29T18:34:29+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-29T18:34:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2068,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010\",\"name\":\"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-29T18:34:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-29T18:34:29+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-29T18:34:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010"},"wordCount":2068,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010","name":"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-29T18:34:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-greater-cochin-development-vs-a-m-shanavas-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Greater Cochin Development vs A.M.Shanavas on 6 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/153110","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=153110"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153110\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}