{"id":159234,"date":"2011-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-09-17T11:47:25","modified_gmt":"2015-09-17T06:17:25","slug":"dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: S. Muralidhar<\/div>\n
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                     W. P. (C) 738\/2004\n\n                                                  Reserved on: September 14, 2011\n                                                  Decision on: September 28, 2011\n\n        DR. REENA RAMACHANDRAN              ..... Petitioner\n                       Through: Ms. S. Janani with\n                                Mr. Deepak Goel and\n                                Mr. Sunando Rana, Advocates.\n\n                            versus\n\n\n        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents\n                         Through:                 Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, CGSC.\n\n         CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR\n\n        1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n           allowed to see the judgment?                               No\n        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                     Yes\n        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?         Yes\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                  28.09.2011<\/p>\n
1. The Petitioner who retired as the Chairman and Managing Director (\u201eCMD\u201f) of
\nHindustan Organic Chemicals Limited (\u201eHOCL\u201f), Respondent No. 3 herein, seeks a
\nmandamus to the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of
\nChemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India, Respondent No. 1, and the
\nDepartment of Public Enterprises (\u201eDPE\u201f), Ministry of Industry, Government of
\nIndia, Respondent No. 2, to re-fix\/revise the Petitioner\u201fs pay during the period of her
\nservice with HOCL by protecting her last drawn pay with the Oil and Natural Gas
\nCorporation      Limited      (\u201eONGC\u201f),      Respondent   No.   4,   including   the   full
\npersonal\/special\/incremental pay granted to her, and consequently direct the
\nRespondents to pay the differential amount to the Petitioner along with the costs of
\nthis petition.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Petitioner initially joined the ONGC and at the time of her being appointed as
\nDirector (Marketing) of HOCL, she was holding the post of General Manager
\n(\u201eGM\u201f) in the ONGC. She was appointed as Director (Marketing), HOCL on 23rd
\nApril 1992 in the scale of pay of Rs. 7500-200-8500. On 1st June 1992, the HOCL<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                    Page 1 of 12<\/span>
\n conveyed to Respondent No. 1 the details of the last pay drawn by her in the scale of
\nRs. 7250-200-8250 in the ONGC. On 24th December 1992, the ONGC furnished to
\nthe HOCL the last pay certificate in respect of the Petitioner. This last pay certificate
\nof the ONGC showed that her basic pay was Rs. 8250\/- and the special pay was Rs.
\n350\/-. The ONGC further clarified to Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner had been
\ngranted two incentive increments @ Rs. 100\/- each with effect from 23rd October
\n1982, i.e., from the date of her joining the ONGC. These increments were revised to
\nRs. 175\/- each (Rs. 350\/- in total) with effect from 1st January 1987, i.e., the day of
\npay revision of the officers in ONGC. This was conveyed to Respondent No. 1 by
\nthe HOCL by a letter dated 28th January 1993. On 9th September 1993, Respondent
\nNo. 1 conveyed to the HOCL the terms and conditions of the Petitioner\u201fs
\nappointment as Director (Marketing) of HOCL. As regards the pay and DA, it was
\nindicated in the said letter as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “3)    Pay: Dr. (Mrs.) Ramachandran will draw a basic
\n                pay of Rs. 8,500\/- per month in the scale of Rs. 7500-200-\n<\/p>\n
                8500 (Schedule \u201eC\u201f) with effect from 23\/04\/1992
\n                (forenoon). In addition to this she will get a Personal Pay
\n                (PP) of Rs. 100\/- per month. This PP of Rs. 100\/- will get
\n                absorbed at the time of her appointment in the next higher
\n                scale or at the time of the next day revision, whichever
\n                takes place earlier, she should not be eligible for drawl of
\n                any increment as her salary has already been fixed in the
\n                maximum of schedule \u201eC\u201f scale.\n<\/p>\n
                4)      Dearness Allowance: She will be allowed DA in
\n                accordance with BPE\u201fs O.M. No. 4(12)\/82-BPE (WC)
\n                dated 19\/03\/1993 as amended from time to time.”\n<\/p>\n
3. The Petitioner\u201fs pay as Director (Marketing) HOCL was fixed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     \"a) Basic Pay (last drawn in ONGC)                           Rs. 10,223\/-\n      b) Higher Qualification Pay                                 Rs.   600\/-\n      c) Total Pay                                                Rs. 10,823\/-\n      d) Pay fixed at the next stage                              Rs. 11,200\/-\n      e) Personal Pay to be absorbed at the time of next pay Rs.         823\/-\n         revision.\"\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
4. It is pointed out by the Petitioner that an express assurance was given in the letter<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                   Page 2 of 12<\/span>
\n dated 9th September 1993 that in addition to the basic pay she would get a personal
\npay of Rs. 100\/- and further that the personal pay would get absorbed at the time of
\nher appointment or the next pay revision. The Petitioner contends that the above
\nundertaking was never adhered to. On 28th February 1995, she was directed to hold
\nadditional charge of CMD of HOCL. She took over as such on 1st March 1995. This
\nwas confirmed by a Presidential Order dated 12th June 1995. On 17th August 1995,
\nRespondent No. 1 conveyed the detailed terms and conditions of the Petitioner\u201fs
\nappointment as CMD of HOCL. The Petitioner was to draw a basic pay of Rs.
\n8700\/- per month in existing scale of pay of Rs. 8500-200-9500\/-. The letter dated
\n17th August 1995 stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “iii) Pay: Dr. (Mrs.) Reena Ramachandran will draw a
\n                basic pay of Rs. 8700\/- per month in the existing scale of
\n                Rs. 8500-200-9500 (Schedule \u201eB\u201f) from the date of her
\n                assumption of office as CMD. The existing scales of pay
\n                were last revised by the Govt. in April, 1990 and were made
\n                effective from 1.1.87. These scales of pay are to be revised
\n                by the Govt. further w.e.f. 1.1.92. The present fixation of
\n                her pay in Schedule \u201eB\u201f at Rs. 8700\/- is, therefore, a stop-
\n                gap arrangement and her pay would be refixed in the
\n                revised scales which would be notified by the Govt. w.e.f.
\n                1.1.92. Since her appointment in schedule \u201eB\u201f has taken
\n                place much after 1.1.92 she would be deemed to have been
\n                appointed ab-initio in the scale of pay which would be
\n                notified subsequently. She would not be eligible for any
\n                fitment amount as CMD.”<\/p>\n
5. The Petitioner states that in the meanwhile, there was a revision of pay scales in
\nthe ONGC whereby salaries of the Executives below the Board level were increased
\nwith effect from 1st January 1992. The DPE, Respondent No. 2, made an
\nannouncement on 19th July 1995 for Board level posts in public sector enterprises
\n(`PSEs\u201f) with effect from 1st January 1992 for a period of five years. The existing
\nSchedule \u201eA\u201f scale of Rs. 9000-250-10000 was revised to Rs. 13000-500-15000.
\nThe Schedule \u201eB\u201f scale of Rs. 8500-200-9500 was enhanced to Rs. 12000-400-
\n14000. By an Office Memorandum (\u201eOM\u201f) of the same date, Respondent No. 1,
\nwhile announcing pay revision for the posts below the Board level stated that the
\nPSEs were being given the flexibility to adopt the pay scale at PSE level depending
\non their requirements. Respondent No. 1 conveyed its authorization of Respondent
\nNo. 3 HOCL to implement the revised pay scales with effect from 1st January 1992<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                Page 3 of 12<\/span>
\n for Board level posts. The Petitioner states that she would have automatically been
\nentitled to the revised pay scale as Director holding the additional charge as CMD of
\nHOCL. On 6th February 1996, the DPE issued an OM regarding the treatment of
\npersonal pay for fixation of pay and DA. Paras 2 and 3 of the said OM read as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “2. Some clarifications have been sought by some of the
\n                PSUs as to whether the \u201ePersonal Pay\u201f granted to some of
\n                the executives while fixing their pay in the revised scales,
\n                shall be counted for purpose of computation of DA & other
\n                allowances. It has now been decided by the Govt. that
\n                \u201epersonal pay\u201f granted after fixation of pay at three stages
\n                below maximum of the scale as per Annexure shall also be
\n                counted as \u201epay\u201f for the purpose of computation of dearness
\n                allowance on percentage basis of neutralization.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                3. The \u201epersonal pay\u201f shall also be counted for purpose of
\n                recovery of licence fees in case of executives living in
\n                company\u201fs leased accommodation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6. The ONGC issued an office order on 21st March 1996 stating, inter alia that the
\nPetitioner\u201fs revised pay as on 1st February 1992 was Rs. 10,223\/- + Rs. 2,102\/- as
\nPersonal Pay. On 30th April 1996, the ONGC enhanced the two increments for
\nhigher qualification from Rs. 175\/- per month to Rs. 300\/- each per month in terms
\nof office order dated 4th April 1996 amounting to a total of Rs. 600\/- per month with
\nretrospective effect from 1st January 1992. In a letter dated 23rd May 1996 addressed
\nto Respondent No.1 the HOCL noted that the revised pay drawn by the Petitioner in
\nONGC as on 22nd April 1992 was Rs. 10,233\/- per month. The personal pay was a
\ncombination of personal pay of Rs. 2,102\/- and special pay of Rs. 600\/-. Her basic
\npay as Director (Marketing), HOCL in the revised pay scale of Rs. 10000-12000,
\nwas fixed at Rs. 10,400\/-. With a yearly increment from 23rd April 1992 onwards, the
\nbasic pay was revised to Rs. 11,600 as on 23rd April 1995. The communication dated
\n23rd May 1996 of the HOCL further stated that in addition, the Petitioner would
\nreceive Rs. 2,702\/- i.e., personal pay (2,102) plus special pay (600) till the next wage
\nrevision. The Petitioner\u201fs basic pay as CMD, HOCL was fixed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “i)        Basic Pay drawn by her in the post of Director       Rs. 11,600\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (Marketing) in the scale of pay of Rs. 10000-
\n                400-12000 as on 11-6-95.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii)        Scale of pay attached to the post of the CMD is      Rs. 12000-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                     400-14000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                  Page 4 of 12<\/span><\/p>\n
      iii)       Next stage available in the higher scale of Rs.     Rs. 12,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                12000-400-14000 is<\/p>\n
                Thus her basic pay as CMD, HOC in the scale of pay Rs.
\n                12000-400-14000 would be fixed as Rs. 12000\/-. In
\n                addition to this she is entitled to the payment of personal
\n                pay and special pay of Rs. 2702\/- per month till the next
\n                wage revision and she will draw her increment on 12-6-86
\n                and so on the anniversary date of her appointment in
\n                Schedule \u201eB\u201f scale.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
7. Respondent No.1 was requested by the HOCL to process the case and solicit the
\napproval of Respondent No. 2.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8. Consequent upon certain clarifications sought by Respondent No.1, the ONGC,
\nby its letter dated 8th August 1996, clarified to the HOCL that the Petitioner\u201fs pay
\nhad been fixed at three stages below the maximum of the revised pay scale, i.e., Rs.
\n9500-11500 in terms of the DPE\u201fs instructions. It further clarified that the personal
\npay had been increased from Rs. 791\/- to Rs. 2,102\/- with effect from 1st January
\n1992 by granting second fitment of Rs. 1,311\/- as on 1st February 1992. As regards
\nthe two special increments for higher qualification (at Rs. 600\/- per month), they
\ncould be claimed separately and did not get merged in the subsequent increase or
\ndecrease in the pay.\n<\/p>\n
9. Respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to the HOCL on 10th July 1997 regarding fixation
\nof pay of the Petitioner as Director (Marketing) and CMD of the HOCL. Her basic
\npay as Director (Marketing) with effect from 23rd April 1992 was fixed as
\nRs.11,200\/- in the scale of Rs.10,000-400-12,000\/- and as CMD with effect from 12th
\nJune 1995 as Rs.12,400 in the scale of Rs.12,000-400-14,000\/-. It was inter alia
\nstated in paras 3 and 4 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                “3. The personal pay drawn by Mrs. Reena Ramachandran
\n                as below Board level as on 1.1.92 at the time of fixation of
\n                pay would be adjusted in the next pay revision as per DPE\u201fs
\n                O.M. dated 19.7.95.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                4. The other terms and conditions for appointment of Mrs.
\n                Reena Ramachandran as Director (Marketing) in HOCL as
\n                notified vide this Deptt. letter No. 17011\/13\/90-Ch-I Desk
\n                dated 9.9.93 and as CMD HOCL notified vide this Deptt.
\n                letter No. 51\/24\/94-Ch.III Desk dated 17.8.95 shall remain<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                Page 5 of 12<\/span>
\n                 unchanged.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10. The Petitioner protested against the above fixation of pay and by a letter dated
\n15th July 1997 she pointed out that it was a fundamental principle of pay fixation that
\nthe total emoluments of the Petitioner drawn by her in the ONGC should not be
\nreduced while fixing her pay on appointment to a Board level post. The basic pay in
\nthe post of GM in the ONGC was Rs. 10,223\/-, the higher qualification pay Rs.600\/-,
\nthe second fitment benefit Rs. 1,311\/- and the personal pay Rs. 823\/- as on 1st
\nJanuary 1992. The total emoluments as on 22nd April 1992 when she left ONGC
\nworked out to Rs. 12,957 per month. The element of Rs. 823\/- which was personal
\npay could be absorbed at the time of the next pay revision. Therefore, ignoring that
\nelement the total emoluments to be reckoned for the purposes of pay fixation in the
\npost of Director (Marketing) worked out to Rs. 12,134\/-. She accordingly pointed out
\nthat given that the scale of pay attached to Director (Marketing) was Rs.10,000-400-
\n12,000, her basic pay should have been fixed at Rs. 12,000\/- and she should have
\nalso been allowed personal pay of Rs. 134\/-. Apart from that, she should be allowed
\nto carry her personal pay of Rs. 823\/- which was granted by the ONGC as on 1st
\nJanuary 1992. Her total personal pay would, therefore, work out to Rs. 957\/- (Rs.
\n823\/- + Rs. 134\/-). As far as the post of CMD, HOCL was concerned, her basic pay
\nfor that purpose, as on 11th June 1995, has to be taken as Rs. 12,000\/- and when
\nmerged with the personal pay it worked out to Rs. 12,134\/-. Her pay was required to
\nbe fixed at the next higher post which was in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-400-14000,
\nand worked out to Rs. 12,400\/-. Although the basic pay was correctly fixed at Rs.
\n12400\/-, the orders did not mention her personal pay which should have been
\nabsorbed at the time of the next pay revision which would take place on 1st January
\n1997.\n<\/p>\n
11. Pursuant to certain observations made by the DPE with regard to the grant of
\npersonal pay to the Petitioner, a letter dated 8th January 1998 was written by
\nRespondent No. 1 to the ONGC. In reply to the said letter, the ONGC clarified by its
\nletter dated 29th January 1998 that after the normal increment, the Petitioner\u201fs pay as
\non 1st January 1992 in the ONGC was Rs. 10223\/- + personal pay of Rs. 823\/-. Her
\npay as on 1st February 1992 was Rs. 10223\/- + Rs. 2102\/- as personal pay. It was
\npointed out that the second fitment of Rs. 1311\/- would be merged in the personal<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                 Page 6 of 12<\/span>
\n pay drawn on 1st January 1992, i.e., Rs. 791\/- + Rs. 1311\/- = Rs. 2102\/-.
\nConsequently, “on her fixation of pay with effect from 1st January 1992 on pay
\nrevision, the total personal pay which has been generated is to the tune of Rs. 2102.”
\nIt was further pointed out that “this personal pay generated as above in all such cases
\nwould be allowed to be carried forward in addition and to be adjusted in the next pay
\nrevision of the officers effective from 1st January 1997.”\n<\/p>\n
12. However, on 11th March 1998, Respondent No. 1 conveyed the approval to the
\npersonal pay of Rs. 791\/- payable to the Petitioner in addition to her pay as Director
\n(Marketing) with effect from 23rd April 1992 and as CMD, HOCL with effect from
\n12th June 1995. By a further letter dated 21st September 1998, Respondent No.1
\ngranted the Petitioner personal pay of Rs. 823 with effect from 23 rd April 1992. It
\nwas stated that this personal pay would be allowed to be carried forward and would
\nbe adjusted in the next pay revision as per the DPE\u201fs OM dated 19th July 1995.\n<\/p>\n
13. The case of the Respondents is that the grant of the second fitment of Rs. 1311\/-
\nby the ONGC to the Petitioner was never contemplated by the OM dated 19th July
\n1995. Consequently, the area of dispute has narrowed down to the grant of the
\nsecond fitment and the consequential differential sum of Rs. 1279 (i.e. 2102 – 823)
\nclaimed as personal pay by the Petitioner. According to the Respondents, the same
\nwas not given because in terms of the said OM, there could be only one fitment
\nwhich was to be on the basis of the salary drawn on 1st January 1992 while the PSEs
\nwere given the flexibility to determine their own pay scales and they were debarred
\nfrom the said OM from adopting different pay scales. Further, the OM dated 19 th
\nJuly 1995 provided that the revision could be on the basis of the pay drawn on 1st
\nJanuary 1992 whereas the second fitment was given with effect from 1st February
\n1992. It is submitted that the Petitioner\u201fs last drawn pay from ONGC was duly
\nprotected on her appointment as Director (Marketing), HOCL and that the principle
\nof pay protection is not applicable in respect of further revisions.\n<\/p>\n
14. Ms. S. Janani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the
\nconcept of pay protection for candidates recruited from Central Autonomous Bodies
\nand PSEs was well settled. She refers to an OM dated 7th August 1989 which
\nconcerns the grant of pay protection of candidates working in PSUs when appointed<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                 Page 7 of 12<\/span>
\n either in government or other PSUs. It is stated that “their initial pay may be fixed at
\na stage in the scale of pay attached to the post, so that the pay and DA, as admissible
\nin the Government will protect the pay plus DA, already being drawn by them in
\ntheir parent organization.” Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt in State Bank of India v. K. P. Subbaiah (2003) 11 SCC 646 which explains
\nthe difference between the expressions \u201epay\u201f and \u201epay scale\u201f. It was further held that
\nthere was no fitment to a particular scale. All that has to be ensured is that the pay
\nshould not be of an amount less than the last pay drawn. The Petitioner has placed on
\nrecord the chart showing the differential amount of \u201epay\u201f arising out of the denial to
\nher of the revised personal pay on account of the second fitment and the
\nconsequential arrears of differential amounts of gratuity, leave encashment, HPL,
\ncontribution to PF. The total sum which according to the Petitioner is owed to her
\nworks out to Rs. 1,96,901\/-.\n<\/p>\n
15. Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the
\nother hand, submits that the petition is barred by laches as it was filed more than
\nthree years after the rejection of the Petitioner\u201fs representation on 7th December
\n1999. The subsequent representations were made by relying on a subsequent OM
\ndated 6th June 2001 and did not give rise to any fresh cause of action. Reference is
\nalso made to an order dated 15th September 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6712 of
\n2011 (Sushil Kumar v. Union of India) to urge that a claim barred by laches ought
\nnot to be entertained. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Basudev Pati
\nv. State of Orissa (1997) 3 SCC 632, and M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society
\nPilani (2006) 12 SCC 636 it is submitted that as long as the last drawn pay as GM
\nwas duly protected, there was no obligation on HOCL to pay the Petitioner all the
\nsubsequent revisions in pay.\n<\/p>\n
16. The plea of the Respondents that the present petition is barred by laches
\noverlooks the fact that the last of the Petitioner\u201fs representations was rejected on 27th
\nMarch 2003 leading to a further clarification by the Petitioner on 5th September 2003
\nfollowed by the filing of the present petition on 8th January 2004. The preliminary
\nobjection of the Respondents as to laches is accordingly rejected.\n<\/p>\n
17. On merits, much of the arguments turn around the interpretation of the OM dated<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                   Page 8 of 12<\/span>
\n 19th July 1995 which sets out the fitment formula. In terms thereof the PSEs were
\ngiven the flexibility to adopt pay scales depending on their requirements. The fitment
\nmethod indicated in Annexure-II of the OM envisaged that the basic pay at the
\nrevised scale would be fixed as under:<\/p>\n
\n\n(a)     The total of basic pay in the existing scale of pay as on 1st January 1992; plus\n\n(b)     Actual DA as on 1st January 1992; plus\n\n(c)     The fitment amount on account of the revision of pay scale up to 20% of the\n<\/pre>\n
        basic pay in the existing scale of pay as on 31st December 1991;plus<\/p>\n
(d)     “Personal Pay\/Personal Allowance\/Personal DA wherever payable along with
\n        existing basic pay”.\n<\/p>\n
18. It was further stated that “on the aggregate pay fixed in the revised scale where
\nthe total does not fit in a stage of the revised scale of pay, the pay will be fixed at the
\nnext higher stage.” “If in some cases the total of the (a) to (d) exceeds the maximum
\nof the revised scale of pay . . . then in such circumstances, the pay of the concerned
\nexecutive or non-unionized supervisors should be fixed at three stages below the
\nmaximum of the scale and the balance amount should be treated as PP. On
\npromotion or appointment in the next higher scale, his pay would be fixed in the
\nnormal course, i.e. taking into account only his basic pay for the purpose. PP would
\nbe allowed to be carried forward in addition and this would be adjusted in the next
\npay revision”.\n<\/p>\n
19. One thing is clear from the above OM dated 19th July 1995. It was not only the
\ntotal of the basic pay, DA, and fitment amount as of 1st January 1992 that was
\nprotected but also the personal pay wherever applicable “along with the basic pay.”
\nThe clarification issued on 6th February 1996 by Respondent No. 2 to the effect that
\npersonal pay would also be counted as \u201epay\u201f for the purpose of DA is also
\nsignificant. This is consistent with the law explained by the Supreme Court in State
\nBank of India v. K.P. Subbaiah that (SCC, p. 655): “when a question of pay
\nprotection comes, the basic feature is that the fitment or fixation of pay in a
\nparticular scale must be such as to ensure that the total emoluments are not
\nreduced.” In the context of the present case, last drawn pay cannot be narrowly
\nconstrued as last drawn \u201epay scale\u201f. The two are not the same. Under Fundamental<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                    Page 9 of 12<\/span>
\n Rule 9 (21), \u201epay\u201f is defined to include special pay and personal pay.\n<\/p>\n
20. The contention of learned counsel for the Respondents that PSEs were debarred
\nfrom adopting different pay scales and in any event the flexibility was subject to the
\nrevision of pay scales only up to 20% is really besides the point. The controversy in
\nthe present case is not about the revision of pay scale. The real controversy is
\nnarrowed down to the personal pay which is in addition to the basic pay and was
\nallowed to be carried forward for being adjusted in the next pay revision in terms of
\nthe OM dated 19th July 1995. While the said OM dated 19th July 1995 states that the
\n“fitment amount on account of the revision of pay scale up to 20% of the basic pay in
\nthe existing scale of pay” would be calculated as on 31st December 1991, it
\nseparately mentions “Personal Pay\/Personal Allowance\/Personal DA wherever
\npayable along with existing basic pay” without reference to any particular date. The
\ncrucial date for determining the pay which the Petitioner was entitled to seek
\nprotection of was that drawn by her in the post of GM, ONGC when she joined
\nHOCL as Director (Marketing). This date was 23rd April 1992. As on that date, the
\nPetitioner was drawing a personal pay of Rs. 2,102. Even if one were to take the
\ncrucial date for the purposes of the OM dated 17th July 1995 as 1st January 1992,
\nthen the position stands clarified by the ONGC by its letter dated 29th January 1998.
\nIt was stated therein that the Petitioner was drawing, as on 1st January 1992, the basic
\npay of Rs. 10223\/- + personal pay of Rs. 823\/-, and as on 1st February 1992 a basic
\npay of Rs. 10223\/- + personal pay of Rs. 2102\/-. Significantly, it was clarified by the
\nONGC that the second fitment of Rs. 1311\/- “would be merged in the personal pay
\ndrawn on 1st January 1992, i.e., Rs. 791\/- + Rs. 1311\/- = Rs. 2102.” Consequently,
\non her fixation of pay on 1st January 1992 on pay revision, the total personal pay
\ngenerated was Rs. 2102. Therefore as on 1st January 1992 by virtue of the above
\n“merger” of the second fitment in the personal pay, the Petitioner\u201fs total personal
\npay was Rs. 2,102 and this was entitled to protection when she joined HOCL as
\nDirector (Marketing). The ONGC further clarified that “this personal pay generated
\nas above in all such cases would be allowed to be carried forward in addition and to
\nbe adjusted in the next pay revision of the officers effective from 1st January 1997.”\n<\/p>\n
21. It is not open to the Respondents 1 and 2 to deny the Petitioner the benefit of
\nprotection of the personal pay drawn by her in ONGC as on 1st January 1992 only on<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                  Page 10 of 12<\/span>
\n the ground that ONGC was too liberal in granting the second fitment. The
\ncorrectness of the decision of the ONGC to grant second fitment to all board level
\nand below board level executives (and not especially to the Petitioner) cannot now be
\nquestioned by the Respondents. In fact, the PSEB ratified the grant of the second
\nfitment by ONGC. The Petitioner was appointed in the HOCL through a competitive
\nselection process. She moved to HOCL on the understanding that her last drawn pay
\nin the ONGC would be protected. In terms of the OM dated 19th July 1995, this
\nincluded her personal pay. There is nothing in the OM dated 19th July 1995 barring
\nthe grant of a second fitment which in turn enhances the personal pay. The grant of
\nincentives by a PSE, by way of a second fitment, is linked to its performance and the
\nprofits earned by it. It would be irrational to direct that such second fitment ought not
\nto be granted by the better performing PSE or that a uniform enhanced personal pay
\nshould be granted by every PSE, irrespective of its performance. There appears to be
\nno rational basis for the Respondents to deny the Petitioner the protection of her last
\ndrawn pay in the ONGC which includes the personal pay as enhanced by the second
\nfitment of Rs.1311 merged into her personal pay as on 1st January 1992.\n<\/p>\n
22. The decisions in Basudev Pati v. State of Orissa and M. Raja v. CEERI
\nEducational Society Pilani deal with the question of revision or grant of pay scales
\nand not so much as protection of last drawn personal pay. In neither case was there a
\nnotification similar to OM dated 19th July 1995 which envisages not only protection
\nof last drawn pay scale but personal pay, special pay etc. drawn in addition to basic
\npay. To reiterate, the question in the present case is not about revision of pay scale
\nbut the grant of enhanced personal pay which, as clarified by the ONGC, was revised
\nin the case of board level and below board level executives of ONGC to Rs. 2,102\/-
\nas of 1st January 1992 and merged in the personal pay granted as of that date.\n<\/p>\n
23. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition succeeds. The Petitioner is held
\nentitled to the protection of her last drawn pay in the ONGC which includes the
\npersonal pay of Rs. 2,102\/- as on 1st January 1992. The Respondents are directed to
\ncalculate the arrears of differential pay, and the consequential arrears of differential
\ngratuity, leave encashment, HPL, the differential contribution of the employer to the
\nPF due to the Petitioner and pay the same to the Petitioner within a period of eight
\nweeks with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the dates that the amounts became<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                   Page 11 of 12<\/span>
\n due till the date of their payment. If the amount determined by the Respondents as
\npayable to the Petitioner is different from the amount calculated by her in Annexure
\nP-43 to the writ petition, the Respondents will furnish the Petitioner the detailed
\nbreak-up of the amount being paid. In case of any delay in payment, the Respondents
\nwill pay penal simple interest at 12% per annum for the period of delay.\n<\/p>\n
24. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms, with costs of Rs. 10,000\/-
\nwhich will be paid by the Respondents to the Petitioner within a period of eight
\nweeks.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            S. MURALIDHAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
\nha<\/p>\n
W. P. (C) No. 738 of 2004                                                  Page 12 of 12<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011 Author: S. Muralidhar IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W. P. (C) 738\/2004 Reserved on: September 14, 2011 Decision on: September 28, 2011 DR. REENA RAMACHANDRAN ….. Petitioner Through: Ms. S. Janani with Mr. Deepak Goel […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011 - 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\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-17T06:17:25+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-17T06:17:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4531,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-17T06:17:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011 - 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\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-17T06:17:25+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-17T06:17:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011"},"wordCount":4531,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011","name":"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-17T06:17:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-reena-ramachandran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-28-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Reena Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/159234","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=159234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}