{"id":154044,"date":"2010-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-27T07:05:22","modified_gmt":"2016-03-27T01:35:22","slug":"yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & … on 21 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & … on 21 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
                                                          1\n\n                                                                                     REPORTABLE\n\n                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                            CIVIL APPEAL NOS.288-289 OF 2005\n\nYOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS.                                                  Appellant (s)\n\n                        VERSUS\n\nNATIONAL INST.,EDU.PLANNING & ADMN.&ORS.                                 Respondent(s)\n\nWITH C.A.NO.209 OF 2007\n                                   J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
DALVEER BHANDARI, J.\n<\/p>\n
          These appeals             are     directed      against       the     judgment    dated<\/p>\n
31.5.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the                       High Court of Delhi at<\/p>\n
New Delhi in L.P.A.NO.301 of 1997 etc. By this common judgment, we<\/p>\n
propose to dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.288-2009 of 2005                             and Civil<\/p>\n
Appeal No.209 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
              Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of these appeals<\/p>\n
are recapitulated as under:\n<\/p>\n
              The     appellants      in    Civil        Appeal     Nos.288-289\/2005            were<\/p>\n
working       as    Assistants      and     Stenographers         with        Respondent    no.1-<\/p>\n
National       Institute      of    Educational          Planning       and     Administration,<\/p>\n
Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
              The appellants in Civil Appeal No.209 of 2007 were working<\/p>\n
with    the    Sahitya       Academy,      Delhi    as    Accounts       and     Administrative<\/p>\n
Assistants\/Assistants\/Stenographers.                     The appellants’ were getting<\/p>\n
the    pay    scale    of    Rs.425-800      upto    1986.        The    Assistants        in   the<\/p>\n
Central Government were also getting the same pay scale.                             According<\/p>\n
to the IVth             Pay Commission, the pay scale of Assistants and
\n                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
Stenographers was revised from Rs.425-800 to Rs.1400-2600 in the<\/p>\n
Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
              The Anomalies Removal Committee gave its recommendation<\/p>\n
increasing the pay scales from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900.                  Though<\/p>\n
the recommendation of the Anomalies Removal Committee were accepted<\/p>\n
from         01.01.1986 but the       appellants     were not given     the      pay<\/p>\n
scale        of      Rs.1640-2900.\n<\/p>\n
              According to the appellants, they were also entitled to<\/p>\n
the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900.            The Central Government vide letter<\/p>\n
dated 5.1.1990 approved the service regulations of the respondent-<\/p>\n
Institute.         Regulation 4(2) provides as under :<\/p>\n
                  “4(2)     Group ‘A’ officers, other than faculty
\n                  members and those on UGC grades of pay groups ‘B’,
\n                  ‘C’   and  ‘D’   employees  shall   draw  salary  and
\n                  allowances in such scales of pay as may be applicable
\n                  to the corresponding categories of Central Government
\n                  employees and be subject to such conditions of
\n                  service as are or may be applicable to Central
\n                  Government employees from time to time.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to this regulation, the appellants were also entitled to<\/p>\n
the    pay    scale    which   was   extended   to   their   counterparts   in   the<\/p>\n
Central Government but the appellants were not given the pay scale<\/p>\n
of Rs.1640-2900. They were compelled to approach the High Court for<\/p>\n
the relief.\n<\/p>\n
              The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court passed<\/p>\n
the following order in the case of Assistants and Stenographers of<\/p>\n
the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration:<\/p>\n
              “IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
             CW No.805\/97<\/p>\n
                  Heard the counsel for the parties and perused
\n             the record. The grievance of the petitioners are that
\n             they are also in the post of Assistant and Personal
\n             Assistants (Steno). Similarly situated organizations
\n             have been granting the revised pay scale for such
\n             posts as given by the Central Government to its
\n             employees    whereas    the    respondents   are  not
\n             implementing the revised pay scales on account of the
\n             circular issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 11st
\n             December, 1990.    This court in CW No.290\/95 decided
\n             on 29 th November, 1995 as well as in the case of
\n             P.S.Gopinathan Nair & Ors. Vs. All India Institute of
\n             Medical Sciences.      C.W.No.4462\/94 decided on 16th
\n             October, 1995, has already given directions to the
\n             similarly situated organizations to grant the pay
\n             scale at par with the employees of the Central
\n             Government.    Similar directions were also given in
\n             the case of the Indian Council of Agricultural
\n             Research, Indian Council of Medical Research and
\n             University Grants Commission.        The case of the
\n             petitioners is at par with the employees of other
\n             organizations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Taking the above factors into consideration,
\n             directions are accordingly given to the respondents
\n             to give the pay scales to the petitioners as
\n             admissible to the Central Government employees for
\n             the     post     of     Assistant   and    Personal
\n             Assistant(Stenographers).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  With these     observations      the   petition     stands
\n             disposed of.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             28.7.1997                                           Sd\/-\n                                                            Usha Mehra\n                                                            Judge.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
             The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was based on<\/p>\n
earlier judgments of the High Court passed in Civil Writ No.290\/95<\/p>\n
decided on 29th November, 1995 and in Civil Writ No.4462\/94 decided<\/p>\n
on 16th October, 1995. Respondent no.1-Institute aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
said judgment preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (for short ‘L.P.A.’)<\/p>\n
before   a   Division    Bench   of   the   High   Court.     By    the   impugned<\/p>\n
judgment, the LPA filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed by the
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
Division Bench along with other appeals. Against the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Division Bench, Review Petitions were filed, which were dismissed by<\/p>\n
the Division Bench of the High Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The    appellants,   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   of   the   High<\/p>\n
Court, preferred these appeals. It may be pertinent to mention that<\/p>\n
the respondent-Institute was pursuing the case of the appellants<\/p>\n
with the Central Government for higher pay scale.          The respondent-<\/p>\n
Institute in fact sent a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Human<\/p>\n
Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi on December 19,<\/p>\n
1994 praying that the appellants herein be given the revised pay<\/p>\n
scales of Rs.1640-2900. The letter reads as under :<\/p>\n
         “No.4-29-2\/94-Pers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           December 19,1994
\n         The Secretary
\n         Government of India
\n         Ministry of Human Resource Development
\n         Department of Education
\n         Shastri Bhawan
\n         New Delhi -110 001<\/p>\n
         Attn:Sh.R.V. Vaidhyananthan Ayyar,
\n              Joint Secretary(Plg.)<\/p>\n
         Sub: Revision of scale of pay of Assistants\/
\n              Stenographers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Sir,
\n                   The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
\n         has conveyed approval of the Govt. of India of the
\n         scale    of    pay   Rs.1640-2900    to   Assistants\/
\n         Sr.Stenographers Grade ‘C’ in place of Rs.1400-2600
\n         working in the Indian Council of Medical research,
\n         New   Delhi.  Therefore,  representations   from   the
\n         employees of this Institute have been received to
\n         revise their scale identical to those adopted for
\n         corresponding   post   at   par   with  the    Central
\n         Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  SR 6(A)(iii) stipulate that the revision of
\n         the pay scale of any post except that of Director
\n         subject to the approval of the Govt. of India and
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
           there upon the First Schedule shall stand amended in
\n           accordance   with  such  directions.   Provided  that
\n           approval of the Govt. of India would not be necessary
\n           for adoption of pay scale and allowances identical to
\n           those adopted for corresponding post at par with
\n           Central Government\/UGC orders issued from time to
\n           time except in case of general revision of scales of
\n           pay of posts. Since, the pay scales of Assistant and
\n           Senior Stenographer ‘C’ in the Central Government is
\n           Rs.1640-2600, therefore, in accordance with the
\n           service regulations cited above, the demand of the
\n           employees appear to be genuine.    It is, therefore,
\n           requested that the case may kindly be considered at
\n           your end in consultation with Internal Finance
\n           Division and approval be conveyed so that the matter
\n           is placed before the Executive committee of the
\n           Institute…….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thereafter     another    letter     on   August    1,     1995   was   sent   to   the<\/p>\n
Secretary,        Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of<\/p>\n
India,   New   Delhi     and   the   Institute     again    requested    the   Central<\/p>\n
Government to grant pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the appellants.<\/p>\n
The letter reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
                                                           “No.F-29-2\/94-Pers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                August 1, 1995
\n           The Secretary
\n           Govt.of India
\n           Ministry of Human Resource Development
\n           (Deptt.of Education)
\n           Shastri Bhawan
\n           New Delhi -110 001<\/p>\n
                         Attention: Dr.R.V.Vaidyanathan Ayyar,
\n                                    Joint Secretary (Planning)<\/p>\n
           Subject:    Revision    of   scale     of   pay    of
\n           Assistants\/Senior
\n                     Stenographers from Rs.140–2600 to Rs.1640-
\n           2900.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Sir,<\/p>\n
           Kindly refer to our letter of even number dated
\n           23.3.1995 and subsequent reminder dated 28.4.1995 on
\n           the subject cited above (copy enclosed). Our Service
\n           Regulations, which had been approved by the Govt. of
\n           India, among other things provide that the scales of
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
         pay of the employees of the NIEPA other than the
\n         faculty and those on UGC grades of pay shall be at
\n         par with those of the Central Government Employees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              In this regard, it may be mentioned that some of
\n         the Autonomous Organizations under Ministry of Human
\n         Resource Development had allowed the revised scale of
\n         Rs.1640-2900 to Assistants and Senior Stenographers
\n         in their organizations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              It is, therefore, requested that approval of the
\n         Govt. on the revision of scales in respect of the
\n         above categories of employees of our Institute may
\n         kindly be sent to us at the earliest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            Yours faithfully,
\n                                            Sd\/-Illegible 1.8.95
\n                                            (O.P.Sharma)
\n                                            Acting Registrar”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The   Director    of   the   respondent   Institute   again   sent   a<\/p>\n
letter on November 2, 1995 to the Education Secretary,           Ministry of<\/p>\n
Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi in which<\/p>\n
it is mentioned that the Assistants and Senior Stenographers of the<\/p>\n
Institute be given the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. The said letter<\/p>\n
reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
                                                   “No.F-29-2\/94-Pers.<\/p>\n
\n          Kudleep Mathur\n          Director                                 November 2, 1995\n\n          Dear Shri Das Gupta,\n\n<\/pre>\n
               Kindly refer to the Institute’s letter No.F-29-
\n          2\/94\/Pers. Dated December 19, 1994 and the subsequent
\n          letters of even number dated 23rd March, 1994, 28th
\n          April, 1995, 29th May, 1995 and 1st August, 1995
\n          regarding revision of pay scales of Assistants\/
\n          Sr.Stenographers ‘C’.      In this respect it is
\n          submitted that the Ministry of Health & Family
\n          Welfare has conveyed the approval of the Govt. of
\n          India    for   the   change    of   pay   scales   of
\n          Assistants\/Sr.Stenographers ‘C’ working in the Indian
\n          Council of Medical research, New Delhi to Rs.1640-
\n          2900 in place of Rs.1400-2600. The JNU and other
\n          universities are also having the scales of Rs.1640-
\n          2900 for these categories of staff. It is learnt that
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
         Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan have also change the pay
\n         scales from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900 recently.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The employees of this Institute have persistently
\n         been demanding that their pay scales may also be
\n         changed from Rs.1400–2600 to Rs.1640-2900.        The
\n         Institute have only 7 posts of Assistants and 10
\n         posts of Sr.Stenographers ‘C’ in position.         The
\n         revision of pay scales and placement of these
\n         employees in this scale     I.e. 1640-2900 will have
\n         minor financial implications and the same would be
\n         met out of the regular budget of NIEPA.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The Service Regulation 6A(C) of NIEPA provide
\n         that the revision of pay scales of any posts except
\n         that of Director subject to the approval of the
\n         Government and thereupon the First Schedule shall
\n         stand amended in accordance with such directions.
\n         Provided that the approval of the Govt. of India
\n         would not be necessary for adoption of pay scales and
\n         allowances    identical   to    those   adopted    for
\n         corresponding post as per the Central Government\/UGC
\n         orders issued from time to time except in cases of
\n         general revision of pay scales of posts.     Since the
\n         pay scales of Assistants\/Sr.Stenographers ‘C’ in the
\n         Central Government is Rs.1640-2900, therefore, in
\n         accordance with the Service Regulations cited above,
\n         the demand of the employees appears to be genuine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              I shall be grateful if the pay scale of
\n         Assistants\/Sr.Stenographer ‘C” of the Institute is
\n         also changed from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900 and
\n         approval of the Ministry may please be conveyed so
\n         that the matter is placed before Executive Committee
\n         for obtaining ex-post-facto approval.      Necessary
\n         guidelines for effecting changes according for the
\n         posts of Sr.P.A.(presently 1640-2900) and P.S. To
\n         (sic) may also kindly be given.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          Yours faithfully,
\n                                          Sd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          (Kuldeep Mathur)
\n         Shri P.R.Das Gupta
\n         Education Secretary
\n         Ministry of Human Resource Development
\n         New Delhi.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         It   may   be   pertinent   to    mention   that     all   these<\/p>\n
communications were sent by respondent no.1 on the strength of the
\n                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
regulations of respondent no.1 which was approved by the Central<\/p>\n
Government.         The said regulation has already been set out in the<\/p>\n
preceding paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
              The    Vth    Pay    Commission         has     granted       the       pay    scale   of<\/p>\n
Rs.1640-2900,        now     revised    as   Rs.5500-9000           to    the     appellants         and<\/p>\n
their counterparts working in the Central Government. We have been<\/p>\n
informed that even the VIth Pay Commission has further revised it to<\/p>\n
Rs.9300-15600 and presently the appellants and their counterparts in<\/p>\n
the Central Government are in that pay scale.\n<\/p>\n
              The short question which arises for consideration in these<\/p>\n
appeals is why the appellants should not be given the pay scale of<\/p>\n
Rs.1640-2900 from the date when their counterparts have been given<\/p>\n
that pay scale in the Central Government?                         Although the stand of the<\/p>\n
Institute has also been that the appellants are entitled for the pay<\/p>\n
scale    of    Rs.1640-2900        which     is       quite       evident      from     the     afore-<\/p>\n
mentioned letters sent by the respondent institute to the Central<\/p>\n
Government.        The     Union   of   India      has      now    in    the    Vth    and    VIth   Pay<\/p>\n
Commissions has given that scale to the appellants.<\/p>\n
              In    our     considered       view,       the      Division        Bench      was     not<\/p>\n
justified     in         setting   aside     the      judgment      of    the     learned       Single<\/p>\n
Judge.    It may be pertinent to mention that the Division Bench did<\/p>\n
not consider the service regulations of the National Institute of<\/p>\n
Educational         Planning and Administration. The case of the appellant<\/p>\n
no.1 herein was not even discussed or considered in the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
            Mr.Amitesh     Kumar,     learned   counsel     appearing     for     the<\/p>\n
Institute-respondent no.1 tried to make out the case that duties,<\/p>\n
responsibilities and obligations of the              appellants were different<\/p>\n
to their counterparts functioning in the Central Secretariat and<\/p>\n
they were justified in not giving the same pay scale. But we do not<\/p>\n
find any merit in the submission because the respondent Institute’s<\/p>\n
stand all through was that the appellants be given the pay scale of<\/p>\n
Rs.1640-2900.      At this stage, respondent no.1 cannot be permitted to<\/p>\n
take a somersault in this manner. The Union of India accepted the<\/p>\n
recommendations of the Vth and VIth Pay Commissions and are giving<\/p>\n
the appellants the same pay scale which their counterparts in the<\/p>\n
Central Government are getting. It may be pertinent to observe that<\/p>\n
these appellants were getting the same pay scale as was given to the<\/p>\n
employees    of    their   categories    in   the   Central   Government    up    to<\/p>\n
1.1.1986. The Union of India accepted the recommendation of the Vth<\/p>\n
and VIth Pay Commissions and are giving them same pay scale then how<\/p>\n
only   during     the   IIIrd   Pay   Commission    their   pay   scale   could   be<\/p>\n
different? and how their duties, obligations and responsibilities<\/p>\n
became different only for a brief period?\n<\/p>\n
            In our considered view, the appellants are entitled to get<\/p>\n
the benefit of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 which their counterparts<\/p>\n
were getting in the Central Government during the relevant period.<\/p>\n
In case this amount has not been paid, the same may be paid to the<\/p>\n
appellants by the Institute within three months from today.<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No.209 of 2007:\n<\/p>\n
            The relevant facts of the case are briefly narrated below:
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
            The    Sahitya   Academy    was      established     in   the   year    1952.<\/p>\n
Later on, it was registered under the Societies Registration Act,<\/p>\n
1860.     According to the Constitution of the Academy, its General<\/p>\n
Council is the highest authority, having the powers to inter alia,<\/p>\n
approved the budget and frame its own rules, regulations, bye-laws<\/p>\n
and rules of procedure and the Government of India does not have any<\/p>\n
role in the same.       The Sahitya Academy (Service) bye-laws came into<\/p>\n
force on 4.3.1961. The rules of the Government of India with regard<\/p>\n
to    recruitment,    service      conditions      etc.   of   employees     are    fully<\/p>\n
applicable to the Academy. A bare perusal of the bye-laws would make<\/p>\n
it amply evident that so far the allowances, salaries etc. of the<\/p>\n
employees are concerned, they are absolutely at par with those of<\/p>\n
the employees of the Government of India. The employees in the cadre<\/p>\n
of Assistants\/Stenographers in the Academy have been drawing the<\/p>\n
same pay scale as that drawn by the Assistant Grade of the Central<\/p>\n
Secretariat       Services    and    Grade       ‘C’   Stenographers        of   Central<\/p>\n
Secretariat Stenographers Service. This scale of pay was Rs.1400-<\/p>\n
2600 after the recommendations of the IVth Central Pay Commission<\/p>\n
(pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800).\n<\/p>\n
            A High Powered pay committee was constituted pursuant to<\/p>\n
the     directions    of     the    Court        and   its     recommendations      were<\/p>\n
incorporated in a government notification dated 12.06.1990.                        Clause<\/p>\n
11 of the said notification stipulated ‘The employees in respect of<\/p>\n
whom the recommendations of the High Power Pay Committee are not<\/p>\n
being implemented under the orders of this Court dated 3.5.1990<\/p>\n
would get pay revision only as and when similar changes are being
\n                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
affected for the central government employees.”<\/p>\n
            The Government of India on 31.07.1990 granted the revised<\/p>\n
scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the posts included in the Assistant Grade<\/p>\n
of the Central Secretariat Services and Grade ‘C’ Stenographers of<\/p>\n
Central     Secretariat       Stenographers          Service,    with     effect    from<\/p>\n
1.1.1986.    It was made clear in the order that the same revised pay<\/p>\n
scale would also be applicable to the Assistants and Stenographers<\/p>\n
in other organizations, where the posts are in comparable grade with<\/p>\n
same qualification and pay scale.\n<\/p>\n
            The         appellants,            who        are           working        as\n\nAssistants\/Stenographers\/other           designations       in     the    same     cadre,\n\n<\/pre>\n
started representing before the concerned authorities for grant of<\/p>\n
the revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 to them.\n<\/p>\n
            The Government of India issued another order on 11.12.1990<\/p>\n
which it directed that revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 granted to the<\/p>\n
Assistants\/Stenographers of the Central Secretariat Services would<\/p>\n
not   be   applicable    to    the   Assistants\/Stenographers            of   autonomous<\/p>\n
organizations.\n<\/p>\n
            In response to an unstarred question in the Rajya Sabha on<\/p>\n
18.1.1991     regarding       revision    of     pay      scales    of        Assistants\/<\/p>\n
Stenographers of autonomous organizations and statutory bodies, the<\/p>\n
then Minister replied that these bodies can decide on their own,<\/p>\n
whether or not to implement the revised scale of pay.<\/p>\n
            The Central Administrative Tribunal on 21.12.1993 directed<\/p>\n
the Government of India to revise the pay scale of Stenographers and
\n                                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
Assistants      to     the        same   level        as      that   of      the      Assistants\/<\/p>\n
Stenographers of the Central Secretariat Services.<\/p>\n
              The Indian Council of Medical Research issued letter on<\/p>\n
18.4.1994 extending the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the Assistants\/<\/p>\n
Stenographers.\n<\/p>\n
              The Government of India issued another letter on 6.1.1995<\/p>\n
stating    that      the   revised       scale    of        Rs.1640-2900       granted    to    the<\/p>\n
Assistants\/Stenographers of the Central Secretariat Services would<\/p>\n
not   be   applicable        to    the   Assistants\/Stenographers                of    autonomous<\/p>\n
organizations.\n<\/p>\n
              The    Indian       Council   of    Agricultural          Research       issued    an<\/p>\n
order on 7.6.1995 conveying the sanction by the competent authority<\/p>\n
of the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to its Assistants\/Stenographers.<\/p>\n
              The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research issued<\/p>\n
an    order    on    9.6.1995       conveying         the    sanction     by    the     competent<\/p>\n
authority      of    the   pay     scale    of    Rs.1640-2900          to     its    Assistants\/<\/p>\n
Stenographers.\n<\/p>\n
              The Delhi High Court passed orders directing payment of<\/p>\n
revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 to Assistants\/Stenographers working in<\/p>\n
the    All India Institute of Medical Sciences.\n<\/p>\n
              The Finance Ministry, Government of India, issued a letter<\/p>\n
on 20.6.1996 conveying the grant of revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 to<\/p>\n
Assistants\/Stenographers working in the National Institute of Health<\/p>\n
and Family Welfare.\n<\/p>\n
              The Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India,<\/p>\n
issued an order on 7.10.1996 conveying the grant of revised scale of
\n                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.1640-2900      to     Assistants\/Stenographers               working    in     the       Delhi<\/p>\n
Development Authority.\n<\/p>\n
            The    appellants      on    14.2.1997        sent    one     of    the     several<\/p>\n
representations seeking revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900.                            However,<\/p>\n
the appellants did not receive any favourable communication.<\/p>\n
            The appellants filed a Civil Writ Petition                      No.559 of 1998<\/p>\n
before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the Government of<\/p>\n
India   order     dated      11.12.1990,       letter    dated     6.1.1995       and    for   a<\/p>\n
further direction that the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 be<\/p>\n
granted to them.\n<\/p>\n
            The aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellants was<\/p>\n
allowed by a      single Judge of the Delhi High Court with a direction<\/p>\n
that the appellants be paid the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900,<\/p>\n
with effect from 1.1.1986. The respondent Institute gave the pay<\/p>\n
scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
            The Union of India preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (for<\/p>\n
short ‘L.P.A.’) bearing LPA No.92 of 1999, against the aforesaid<\/p>\n
order dated 16.10.1998.\n<\/p>\n
            The   Division       Bench    of    the     Delhi    High     Court   heard      the<\/p>\n
aforesaid   LPA    as     well   as     the    other    connected       appeals       and   writ<\/p>\n
petitions filed by the Union of India.                   By an order dated 31.5.2002<\/p>\n
LPA   No.92\/1999       was   allowed     as    also     the   other     appeals       and   writ<\/p>\n
petitions filed by the Union of India and thereby held that the<\/p>\n
revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was not payable to the Assistants\/<\/p>\n
Stenographers working in autonomous organizations\/statutory bodies<\/p>\n
like the Sahitya Academy.\n<\/p>\n
                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
            The Delhi High Court, in the impugned judgment, took into<\/p>\n
consideration the facts of the case relating to ESI corporation only<\/p>\n
and    as    such     the     individual          facts    relating       to     different<\/p>\n
organizations, including the Sahitya Academy, were not considered at<\/p>\n
all.\n<\/p>\n
            The appellants filed a review application before the Delhi<\/p>\n
High Court being Review Petition No.2000 of 2002. The Respondent-<\/p>\n
Union of India filed a counter affidavit in the aforesaid Review<\/p>\n
Petition    No.2000\/2002.          The   appellants        then   filed     a    rejoinder<\/p>\n
affidavit in the aforesaid Review Petition No.2000\/2002.                        The Review<\/p>\n
Petition was also dismissed.             The appellants have now approached<\/p>\n
this Court.\n<\/p>\n
            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.                           In<\/p>\n
view   of   our    judgment   in     Civil    Appeal      Nos.288-289      of   2005,   the<\/p>\n
appellants    in    this    appeal    were    fully       justified   in    getting     the<\/p>\n
benefit of the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from 01.01.1986. In<\/p>\n
the instant case the appellants have already received the benefit of<\/p>\n
the revised pay scale. The question which arose for consideration<\/p>\n
was whether the respondents can recover the additional amount paid<\/p>\n
to the appellants.          In our considered view, the appelants in this<\/p>\n
appeal were fully justified in getting the benefit of the revised<\/p>\n
pay scale.        Even otherwise also the additional amount cannot be<\/p>\n
recovered from them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Mr.Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the appellants in this appeal, submitted that the benefit of higher
\n                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
pay scale granted to appellants cannot be recovered in view of the<\/p>\n
series of the judgments of this Court. He placed reliance on a three<\/p>\n
judge Bench judgment of this Court in Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. Vs.<\/p>\n
Union of India & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC p.521 para 11, which reads as<\/p>\n
under :\n<\/p>\n
           “Although we have held that the petitioners were
\n           entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms
\n           of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
\n           w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of
\n           10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of
\n           Rs.330-560 but as they have received the scale of
\n           Rs.330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and
\n           that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with
\n           effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just
\n           and proper not to recover any excess amount which has
\n           already been paid to them.     Accordingly, we direct
\n           that no steps should be taken to recover or to do
\n           adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due
\n           to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners
\n           being in no way responsible for the same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This judgment has been followed in the subsequent judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court in   Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1995) Suppl.1 SCC<\/p>\n
p.18 para 5, which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
          “Admittedly the appellant does not possess the
\n          required educational qualifications.       Under the
\n          circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to
\n          the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him
\n          the relaxation.    Since the date of relaxation the
\n          appellant had been paid his salary on the revised
\n          scale.    However, it is not on account of any
\n          misrepresentation made by the appellant that the
\n          benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but
\n          by wrong construction made by the Principal for which
\n          the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under
\n          the circumstances the amount paid till date may not
\n          be recovered from the appellant.    The principle of
\n          equal pay for equal work would not apply to the
\n          scales   prescribed    by   the   University   Grants
\n          Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any
\n          order as to costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr.Sharan also cited another relatively recent judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court in the case of    State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Pandey Jagdishwar
\n                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
Prasad, (2009) 3 SCC p.117        para 19 which reads as under :<\/p>\n
            “It is not needed for this Court to verify the
\n            veracity of the statements made by the parties.    If
\n            at all the respondent entered the second date of
\n            birth at a subsequent period of time, the authorities
\n            concerned should have detected it and there should
\n            have been a detailed enquiry to determine whether the
\n            respondent was responsible for the same. It has been
\n            held in a catena of judicial pronouncements that even
\n            if by mistake, higher pay scale was given to the
\n            employee, without there being misrepresentation or
\n            fraud, no recovery can be effected from the retiral
\n            dues in the monetary benefit available to the
\n            employee.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In view of a series of judgments of this Court,                    the<\/p>\n
appellants are otherwise entitled to            the revised pay scale. the<\/p>\n
amount paid to the appellants-employees pursuant to the grant of<\/p>\n
higher pay scale should not be recovered unless it was a case of<\/p>\n
mis-representation or fraud.        Admittedly, neither mis-representation<\/p>\n
nor fraud can be attributed to the appellants in C.A.NO.209\/2007.<\/p>\n
In   this   view   of   the   matter,   respondent    no.1-Institute   would    be<\/p>\n
restrained from recovering any amount which has already been paid to<\/p>\n
the appellants in C.A.NO.209\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
            In the result, the impugned judgment is             set aside and<\/p>\n
Civil Appeals Nos.288-289 of 2005 and Civil Appeal No.209 of 2007<\/p>\n
are allowed and disposed of.            However, the benefit of this order<\/p>\n
would be confined to the           appellants        in Civil Appeals Nos.288-<\/p>\n
289 of 2005 and Civil Appeal No.209 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
                                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
           In   the   facts and circumstances of these cases, we direct<\/p>\n
the parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ……………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     (DALVEER BHANDARI)<\/p>\n
                                                  ……………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         (DEEPAK VERMA)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
21ST OCTOBER, 2010<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & … on 21 October, 2010 Author: D Bhandari Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.288-289 OF 2005 YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS NATIONAL INST.,EDU.PLANNING & ADMN.&ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A.NO.209 […]<\/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-154044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nYogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & ... on 21 October, 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\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & ... on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-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=\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-27T01:35:22+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & … on 21 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-27T01:35:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4122,\"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\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & ... on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-27T01:35:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & … on 21 October, 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":"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & ... on 21 October, 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\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & ... on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-27T01:35:22+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & … on 21 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-27T01:35:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010"},"wordCount":4122,"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\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010","name":"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & ... on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-27T01:35:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogeshwar-prasad-ors-vs-national-inst-edu-planning-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors vs National Inst.,Edu.Planning & … on 21 October, 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\/154044","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=154044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154044\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}