{"id":15616,"date":"2010-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-10T03:04:30","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T21:34:30","slug":"ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                      Court No. 23\n                                          Reserved on 17.12.2009\n                                          Delivered on 22.01.2010\n\n             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55464 of 2002\n\n                      Ram Lakhan and others\n\n                               Versus\n\n                      State of U.P. and others\n\nHon'ble V.K.Shukla,J\n    Present writ petition has been filed by petitioners for quashing\nof the order dated 26.10.2002 passed by Chief Secretary Government\nof U.P. at Lucknow rejecting the demand of petitioners for according\nthem salary as is admissible to Surveyor\/ Assistant Surveyor of other\ndepartment and further prayer has been made that a writ in the\nnature of mandamus be issued directing respondent no. 1 to publish<\/pre>\n
Surveyor Service Rules of Irrigation Department ignoring the order
\ndated 13.02.1998 wherein post of Surveyor\/Assistant Surveyor has
\nbeen declared to be dead cadre.\n<\/p>\n
     Brief background of the case is that petitioners were appointed
\nsomewhere in the year 1983 to 1985 on the post of Surveyor\/
\nAssistant Surveyor in Tubewell Division of Irrigation Department.
\nPetitioners have come out with the case that qualification, source of
\nselection, nature of work\/duty obligation are similar to the work and
\nconduct of Surveyor\/ Assistant Surveyor of other department of the
\nCentral and State Government. In this background on the basis of
\nequal pay for equal work, similar salary should be made admissible to
\npetitioners also. Petitioners have contended that Surveyor Association
\nespoused the said case before Samta Samiti in the year 1989 and
\nSamta Samiti submitted its report to the Chief Secretary in the year
\n1989 recommending therein to remove the anomalies in pay of
\nSurveyor\/ Assistant Surveyor of the Irrigation Department for paying
\nsimilar pay of the other department of Central Government and State
\nGovernment. It has been stated that thereafter on the said
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
recommendation of the Samta Samiti and on the basis of direction of
\nChief Secretary of Samiti, Pay Scale Committee was constituted on
\n19.08.1990 comprising of Chairman-Chief Engineer (Nalkoop-World
\nBank); Sanyojak Sadasya, Staff Adhikari (Nalkoop- World Bank) and
\nMember- Staff Adhikari. Said Committee asked Pramukh Abhiyanta
\n(Engineer in-Chief) Irrigation Department to submit its report and on
\n05.04.1991, State Government asked the Pramukh Abhiyanta
\n(Engineer in-Chief) Irrigation Department for removing anomalies in
\npay scale of Surveyor\/ Assistant Surveyor of Irrigation Department.
\nPay Scale Committee submitted its report wherein it has been stated
\nthat qualification, work and duties of the Surveyor\/ Assistant
\nSurveyor of Irrigation Department are similar to other department of
\nthe Central Government and Forest Department of State of U.P. and
\nsaid report was sent to State Government on 12.04.1991 for
\nproviding Government acceptance. On 10.03.1995 Joint Secretary,
\nIrrigation Department also called the proposal of pay scale for
\nSurveyor\/ Assistant Surveyor. It has been stated that thereafter it
\nwas resolved for publication of Surveyor\/Assistant Surveyor Service
\nRules of the Irrigation Department.         Petitioners have further
\ncontended that pursuant to same recommendation dated 10.05.1995
\nwas sent. Petitioners have further contended that in spite of said
\nrecommendation being made nothing was done and in between
\ndecision was taken to declare the post of Surveyor\/Assistant Surveyor
\nas dead cadre on 13.02.1998. Petitioners have further stated that as
\nnothing was being done, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10687 of 2002
\n(Ram Lakhan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) had been filed
\nand said writ petition has been disposed of vide judgment and order
\ndated 19.03.2002 with a direction that Chief Secretary to decide the
\nmatter. Petitioners have further contended that thereafter detailed
\nrepresentation was moved and order dated 26.10.2002 has been
\npassed rejecting the claim of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
     Counter affidavit has been filed and therein stand has been
\ntaken that pursuant to order dated 19.03.2002 passed by this Court
\nmatter was taken up by Chief Secretary of Government of U.P. and
\ndecision was taken on 26.10.2002. Details have also been given that
\nfor carrying survey work, Surveyor\/Assistant Surveyor have been
\ninducted and accepting the eligibility criteria, subsequent to the same
\ndecision has been taken on 13.02.1998 for declaring the said cadre
\nas dead cadre. Details have also been furnished that functioning of
\nSurveyor of the Irrigation Department is altogether different to the
\nfunctioning of Surveyor of other department and as far as posts
\nwhich are available in the Irrigation Department of Surveyor\/
\nAssistant Surveyor in the State of U.P. there is no corresponding post
\navailable in the Central Government and in this background on the
\nbasis of recommendation made by Samta Samiti w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as
\nper Sambadh pay scale (attached pay scale), has been accorded and
\nsame has been revised. Details have also been given as to under
\nwhat circumstance decision was taken to declare the cadre in
\nquestion as dead cadre.\n<\/p>\n
     Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein it has been stated
\nthat qualification for appointment on the post of Surveyor\/Assistant
\nSurveyor are identical, and same are provided by Government Order
\ndated 21\/24.09.1983 and 15.12.1983. In respect of cadre being
\ndeclared as dead cadre, averments have been mentioned that it is
\nmalafide move. It has also been stated that post of Surveyor\/Senior
\nSurveyor\/Superintendent Surveyor are continuing in the Irrigation
\nDepartment since 1960. Post of Assistant Surveyor has been created
\nin the year 1963 whereas World Bank Pariyojana started in the year
\n1980, in this background it has been sought to be suggested that
\npetitioners have got no concerned about same motives has been
\nsought to be imputed in respect of non-implementation of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     Supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed and therein
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
copy of the Government Order dated 08.01.2007 and 04.07.2002 and
\ncopy of the recommendation and copy of charts have been
\nappended.\n<\/p>\n
     Supplementary rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and
\ntherein copy of the judgment passed by this Court and copy of the
\nGovernment Orders have been appended.\n<\/p>\n
     After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged,
\npresent writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal
\nwith the consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     Sri P.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended
\nwith vehemence that in the present case order dated 26.10.2002
\npassed by Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. proceeding to reject
\nthe claim of the petitioners for grant of similar pay scale as
\nadmissible to Surveyor\/Assistant Surveyor of Forest Department is
\nbased on mere surmises and conjecture and no real exercise
\nwhatsoever has been undertaken as is formulated under the policy
\nholding the field to see and ensure that on the basis of principle of
\nequal pay for equal work petitioners and other similarly situated
\nincumbents are entitled for similar salary and similar pay scale, as is
\nadmissible to incumbents of other State Department in this
\nbackground order which has been passed is unsustainable and is
\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
     Countering said submission learned Standing Counsel Sri A.K.
\nUpadhyay, on the other hand contented that fixation of pay scale etc.
\nis the job of expert and in said process nature of work and duties as
\nwell as various other factors including mode of selection, eligibility
\ncriteria are to be looked into by the experts and here requisite
\nexercise has been undertaken and thereafter claim of the petitioners
\nhas been rejected, as such writ petition as it has been framed and
\ndrawn is liable to be dismissed as expert body has already taken
\ndecision and whatever pay scale was admissible same has been
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
made     admissible    to   the    petitioners      and      same       has      been
\ncorrespondingly revised also.\n<\/p>\n
       After respective arguments have been advanced factual
\nposition which is emerging in the present case is that petitioners
\nhave    been    performing        and       discharging      their      duties     as
\nSurveyor\/Assistant Surveyor. Petitioners have set up their claim for
\nensuring     them     similar   pay        scale   as     was     admissible       to
\nSurveyor\/Assistant     Surveyor       of     the   Forest       Department.       On
\n10.05.1995     Pramukh      Abhiyanta        (Engineer      in-Chief)     Irrigation
\nDepartment had made recommendation for ensuring said pay scale
\nto Surveyor\/Assistant Surveyor of the Irrigation Department as was
\nadmissible to Surveyor\/Assistant Surveyor of the Forest Department.\n<\/p>\n
       Demand was being raised by State Government employees that
\nState Government employees should also be accorded similar pay
\nscale as corresponding staff of Central Government establishments
\nwere being paid. State Government in its wisdom in the year 1988
\nconstituted Samta Samiti for said purpose. Said Samta Samiti in its
\nwisdom on the basis of material produced before it qua the posts qua
\nwhich corresponding posts were available in the Central Government,
\nsame pay scale was made admissible and wherever Samta Samiti
\nfound that in the Central Government establishments Corresponding
\nposts are not available then recommendations were made to ensure
\npay scale as per Sambadh pay scale (attached pay scale). Pursuant
\nto the said recommendation, attached formula pay scales were made
\nadmissible. Prior to 01.01.1986 pay scale which was admissible to
\nSurveyor was of Rs. 354-550 and Assistant Surveyor of Rs. 330-495
\nand w.e.f. 01.01.1986 it was revised to Rs. 950-1500\/- and Rs. 825-
\n1200\/- and subsequently revised pay scale of the said cadre has been
\nRs. 3050-4590 and Rs. 2750-4400\/- as per recommendation of Pay
\nCommission (1997-1999). The Chief Secretary has proceeded to
\nmention based on the principle that as equalisation was to be seen
\n                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
vis-a-vis corresponding posts available in the Central Government, as
\nsuch whatever fixation has been made, same has been made
\naccordingly and attached pay scale has been accorded after
\n01.01.1986, there is no provision of inter se comparison of posts
\nwithin the State qua different departments.\n<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and
\nothers Vs. Charanjit Singh and others reported in AIR 2006
\nSC 161 has clarified legal position vis-a-viz equal pay for equal work
\nby mentioning same has no mechanical application in every case.
\nRelevant extract of aforesaid judgement paragraphs 17 and 18 are
\nbeing extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
            “17. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we
\n     are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh, Tilak
\n     Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and Tarun K. Roy,
\n     lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equal pay for
\n     equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced
\n     in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value.
\n     The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical
\n     application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification
\n     based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped
\n     together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or
\n     characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to
\n     be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper
\n     basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote
\n     efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or
\n     resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an
\n     acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person
\n     has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain
\n     cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different,
\n     then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons
\n     may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons
\n     are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due
\n     regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are
\n     evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification
\n     based on difference [1997 AIR SCW 1057 2003 AIR SCW 3382 2003
\n     AIR SCW 2513] in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay
\n     scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
     a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing
\n     the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service.
\n     The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the
\n     nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of
\n     physical activity. The application of the principle of “equal pay for equal
\n     work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The
\n     accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ
\n     from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There
\n     may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility.
\n     Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference.
\n     Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be
\n     evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters
\n     where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally, a party claiming equal
\n     pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard.
\n     In any event the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to
\n     make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus,
\n     before any direction can be issued by a Court, the Court must first see
\n     that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High
\n     Court, is on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was
\n     equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it
\n     may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the
\n     respective Writ Petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court
\n     has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for
\n     equal work applies without examining any relevant factors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            18. As stated above in all these cases the High Court has
\n     followed a Full Bench decision of that Court. The Full Bench has also
\n     observed that the essential ingredient is similarity. This would be
\n     correct. However, at one stage the Full Bench observes that even if
\n     some dispute is raised. That would be wrong law. In each case the
\n     Court must satisfy itself that the burden of proving that the work and
\n     conditions are equal is discharged by the aggrieved employee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and
\nanother Vs. S.B. Vohra and others reported in 2004 SCC
\n(L&S) 363 has taken the view that High Court on the judicial side
\nshould not ordinarily issue writ of or in the nature of mandamus to
\nCentral\/State Govt. to comply with the decision of the Chief Justice
\nbut should instead refer the matter back to Central\/State Govt. with
\nsuitable directions and only exceptional cases High Court on the
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
judicial   side        should   interfere    and     that    too     with     care   and
\ncircumspection.\n<\/p>\n
                “52. The High Court, however, should not ordinarily issue a
\n      writ of or in the nature of mandamus and ought to refer the matter
\n      back to the Central\/State Government with suitable directions
\n      pointing out the irrelevant factors which are required to be excluded
\n      in taking the decision and the relevant factors which are required to
\n      be considered therefore. The statutory duties should be allowed to
\n      be performed by the statutory authorities at the first instance. In the
\n      event, however, the Chief Justice of the High Court and the State are
\n      not ad idem, the matter should be discussed and an effort should be
\n      made to arrive at a consensus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              53. We are further of the opinion that only in exceptional
\n      cases the High Court may interfere on the judicial side, but ordinarily
\n      it would not do so. Even if an occasion arises for the High Court to
\n      interfere on its judicial side, the jurisdiction of the High Court should
\n      be exercised with care and circumspection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              54. As the matter has been pending for a long time and
\n      keeping in view the fact and the situation obtaining herein, namely,
\n      the officers holding the post of Private Secretaries to the Judges
\n      have been given a particular scale of pay, we are of the opinion that
\n      it is not a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its discretionary
\n      jurisdiction.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On the parameter as given, in the present case this much has
\nnot been disputed that on 10.05.1995 recommendations were made
\nby Pramukh Abhiyanta (Engineer in-Chief) Irrigation Department in
\nfavour of the petitioners. This much has also not been disputed that
\nin Central Government there are no corresponding posts available
\nand as such said benefits has not at all been given to the petitioner
\nand other similarly situated incumbents. Petitioners have been
\nclaiming parity with Surveyor\/Assistant Surveyor of the Forest
\nDepartment. In the order dated 26.10.2002 which has been passed
\nby Chief Secretary therein it has been mentioned that after
\n01.01.1986 there is no provision for inter se comparison of post with
\nother State department employees and comparing post of one
\ndepartment to post of another department is prohibited.\n<\/p>\n
                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
       Chapter V of the recommendation of the Samta Samiti, 1989
\nclearly proceeds to mention at pages 22 to 23 of the supplementary
\nCounter Affidavit that where corresponding posts are not available in
\nthe Central Government then attached pay scale should be accorded.
\nIt has also been provided that at the point of time when the provision
\nis being made for according attached pay scale then apart from other
\nrelevant considerations three relevant circumstances shall also be
\nkept in mind. Clause 5.5 (C) clearly proceeds to mention that there
\nshould not be enough difference in reference of posts departmental
\ninter se department of the State. Thus, Clause 5.5 clearly reflects
\nthat even at the point of time when attached pay scale is to be
\naccorded some exercise is to be undertaken and therein complete
\nprohibition is not at all there rather consideration is envisaged qua
\ninter se comparison of the pay scale of the other departments also,
\nso that it is ensured and there is no much disparity in grant and
\nfixation of pay scale. Consequently, in the facts of the case decision
\nwhich has been taken by Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. suffers
\nfrom manifest error on the face of it.\n<\/p>\n
      Consequently,   order   dated      26.10.2002   passed   by   Chief
\nSecretary, Government of U.P. is hereby quashed and set aside.
\nMatter is remitted back to be decided afresh in accordance with law
\npreferably within four months from the date of delivery of judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      With the above observations and directions present writ petition
\nis allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      No orders as to cost.\n<\/p>\n
Dated : 22nd January, 2010
\nDhruv\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010 Court No. 23 Reserved on 17.12.2009 Delivered on 22.01.2010 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55464 of 2002 Ram Lakhan and others Versus State of U.P. and others Hon’ble V.K.Shukla,J Present writ petition has been filed by petitioners for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 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\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-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=\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T21:34:30+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T21:34:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2877,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T21:34:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 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":"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 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\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T21:34:30+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T21:34:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010"},"wordCount":2877,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010","name":"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T21:34:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lakhan-others-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Lakhan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 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\/15616","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=15616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}