{"id":15461,"date":"2009-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-24T13:27:59","modified_gmt":"2015-03-24T07:57:59","slug":"the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P.No.1560 of 2009                                           -1-\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n               CHANDIGARH\n\n                                     C.W.P.No.1560 of 2009\n                                     Date of Decision:- 10.03.2009\n\nThe Shivalik Development Agency, Ambala                 ....Petitioner(s)\n\n\n                  vs.\n\nPresiding Officer and another                           ....Respondent(s)\n\n                  ***\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH\n\n                  ***\n\nPresent:-   Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with\n            Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr.C.M.Chopra, Advocate for the respondent.\n\n                  ***\n\nAUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
            In the present writ petition, challenge is to award dated<\/p>\n
29.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala vide which<\/p>\n
the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding her<\/p>\n
entitled to reinstatement in service along with all consequential service<\/p>\n
benefits including continuity of service and full back-wages.<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman cannot be<\/p>\n
put back in service as it is a public appointment and the appointment was<\/p>\n
not made in accordance with the Statutory Rules governing the service.<\/p>\n
He further contends that in any case, the appointment of the workman was<\/p>\n
on 89 days’ basis for a specified term on daily wages at D.C.<\/p>\n
rates with intermittent breaks and on the basis of the agreement entered into<\/p>\n
by the parties. He contends that as per the provisions contained under
\n C.W.P.No.1560 of 2009                                          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
to as the Act), which is an exception to the term “retrenchment”. It would<\/p>\n
not be a retrenchment and, therefore, non-compliance of Section 25-F of the<\/p>\n
Act would not confer any right upon the workman. That being so, the<\/p>\n
award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. In support of his<\/p>\n
contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs.<\/p>\n
Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs.<\/p>\n
Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula,<\/a> (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs.<\/p>\n
Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Development Corpn.<\/p>\n
vs. M.C.Joshi,<\/a> (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others vs.<\/p>\n
Lalit Kumar Verma,<\/a> (2007) SCC 575, to contend that the posts under the<\/p>\n
State are required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by<\/p>\n
inviting applications from all eligible candidates. It is contended that the<\/p>\n
respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages without following the<\/p>\n
rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, therefore,<\/p>\n
even if the workman has completed 240 days of service, she is not entitled<\/p>\n
to be reinstated and also for the grant of back wages.\n<\/p>\n
            Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai and<\/p>\n
another, (2006) 11 SCC 684.\n<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the<\/p>\n
contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of the<\/p>\n
workman was not in consonance with the statutory rules, is not correct. The<\/p>\n
appointment of the workman was made through the Employment Exchange<\/p>\n
on a sanctioned vacant post of a Clerk. She continued to work on the said
\n C.W.P.No.1560 of 2009                                           -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
post from 15.9.1999 to 5.12.2002. This period included 12 extensions of 89<\/p>\n
days’ basis which actually shows that there was work available with the<\/p>\n
respondents and her services have been terminated just to deprive her of<\/p>\n
the statutory rules as contained under the Act. He contends that since it is<\/p>\n
not in dispute that the workman had completed more than 240 days in the 12<\/p>\n
preceding months from the date of her termination and it is also not in<\/p>\n
dispute that no compensation, notice or enquiry was held before such<\/p>\n
termination, the   provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been<\/p>\n
blatantly violated and the workman has been held entitled to the relief by<\/p>\n
the Labour Court.    The award passed by the Labour Court is, thus, in<\/p>\n
accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court.<\/p>\n
            In response to this, learned counsel for the petitioner states that<\/p>\n
it is an admitted position that the post is a public post which needs to be<\/p>\n
filled up as per the statutory rules. It is also an admitted position that the<\/p>\n
appointment was on daily wage basis and not on regular basis; although the<\/p>\n
post may be a post which was available but was not filled on regular basis.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the appointment cannot be said to be in accordance with the<\/p>\n
Statute. He further contends that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India which provides for filling up of the post by inviting applications and<\/p>\n
giving chance to all who participate in the selection, have not been<\/p>\n
complied with and, therefore, the workman         would not be entitled to<\/p>\n
reinstatement in service. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that at<\/p>\n
the most the respondent-workman would be entitled to compensation for the<\/p>\n
period she has worked with the petitioner but she cannot be reinstated in<\/p>\n
service in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev,<\/a> 2008 (4)
\n C.W.P.No.1560 of 2009                                          -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State<\/p>\n
of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and<\/a> another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788. This<\/p>\n
Court has held that a daily wage employee, even in case there is non-<\/p>\n
compliance of the Act and there is violation of Sections 2 (oo) (bb), 25-F,<\/p>\n
25-G and 25-H, is not entitled to reinstatement on a public post but would<\/p>\n
be entitled to compensation. In the said judgment also, this Court has<\/p>\n
granted compensation to the workman.\n<\/p>\n
            I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone<\/p>\n
through the records of the case. The public post on which the workman has<\/p>\n
been reinstated is required to be filled up by following the principles of<\/p>\n
Articles 14 and 16 as has been laid out thereunder. The judgments which<\/p>\n
have been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner emphasize and point<\/p>\n
towards the mandate of the Constitution which is attached while filling up<\/p>\n
the post on falling within the domain of public post.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of this situation and the legal position as settled by the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n
            However, in the light of the admitted position that the workman<\/p>\n
has completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date<\/p>\n
of her termination, she would be entitled to compensation in lieu of<\/p>\n
reinstatement in service.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
in Keshab Dev’s case (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
Ishwar Singh’s case (supra), the award dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure P-3)<\/p>\n
passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala is hereby set<\/p>\n
aside. The workman having worked with the petitioner from 15.9.1999 to
\n C.W.P.No.1560 of 2009                                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
5.12.2002 i.e. about three and a half years, is entitled to Rs.35,000\/- as<\/p>\n
compensation to settle the equities between the parties in lieu of<\/p>\n
reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n
              This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to<\/p>\n
make the payment of compensation of Rs.35,000\/- to the respondent-<\/p>\n
workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of<\/p>\n
this order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
March 10, 2009                         ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )\npoonam                                           JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nWhether referred to Reporters ________ Yes\/No\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009 C.W.P.No.1560 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1560 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 10.03.2009 The Shivalik Development Agency, Ambala ….Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer and another ….Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15461","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009 - 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-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-24T07:57:59+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=\"6 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-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-24T07:57:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1164,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009\",\"name\":\"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-24T07:57:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009 - 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-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-24T07:57:59+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-24T07:57:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009"},"wordCount":1164,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009","name":"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-24T07:57:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shivalik-development-agency-vs-presiding-officer-and-another-on-10-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Shivalik Development Agency vs Presiding Officer And Another on 10 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/15461","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=15461"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15461\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15461"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15461"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15461"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}