{"id":160420,"date":"2002-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002"},"modified":"2015-12-23T12:15:01","modified_gmt":"2015-12-23T06:45:01","slug":"state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. … on 29 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. … on 29 October, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: D Raju<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, H.K. Sema.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7342 of 1993\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Orissa & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAppellants\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBalaram Sahu & Ors., etc. etc.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t      Respondents\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/10\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nDoraiswamy Raju & H.K. Sema.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
W I T H
\nCivil Appeal No.7343 of 1993,
\nCivil Appeal Nos. 7047-7048 of 2002
\n(Arising out of S.L.P.[C] Nos.16204-16205 of 1996)
\nand
\nCivil Appeal No.751 of 1995<\/p>\n
D. RAJU, J.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No.7342 of 1993 :\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers, have filed Writ
\nPetition in the High Court of Orissa for payment of remuneration on the same
\nscale and basis paid to the regularly employed staff, claiming that they are
\ndischarging the same duties and functions, invoking the principle of `equal pay
\nfor equal work’.  They also sought for regularization of their services on the
\nground that they have been found working for considerably long period of time to
\njustify their regularization.  The appellant-State contested the claim by
\ncontending that the duties and responsibilities of the employees in the regular
\nestablishment were more onerous than that of the duties of N.M.R. workers, who
\nare employed in various projects on daily basis and that their engagement also
\ndepended on the availability of the work in the different projects and
\nconsequently, they cannot claim any parity for equal pay.  The Division Bench of
\nthe High Court by a judgment dated 10.3.1992 upheld the claim for regularization
\nby observing that the said aspect of the matter was not seriously challenged.  As
\nfor the claim for equal pay, the High Court was of the view that there was no
\nreason to deny them the equal scales of pay and sustained their claim on par
\nwith those employed on regular basis with effect from 2.1.1990, namely, the date
\nof filing of the Writ Petition, with a further direction that those who have served
\ncontinuously for a period of five years by then should be regularized.\tAggrieved,
\nthe above appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
\tCivil Appeal No.7343 of 1993:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers in the Rengali
\nPower Project, also claim for similar relief as in the other appeal, noticed supra.
\nOverruling the objections of the appellants, while directing regularization of the
\nworkers, who have completed five years of continuous service as on the date of
\nthe order, the High Court also applying the principles laid down in the earlier
\ncases, upheld in this case as well the right to get equal pay though in the matter
\nof actual payment taking into account the negligible difference, a lump sum
\namount was directed to be made available to take care of the claim of all the
\nrespondents.  Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
\tCivil Appeal No.751 of 1995:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondents in this appeal, who are N.M.R. workers employed in the
\nvarious projects of the Irrigation Department of the State Government, sought for
\nrelief of regularization of their services and equal pay as that of the regularly
\nemployed staff.\t As in the other cases, the claims were sustained necessitating
\nthis appeal also by the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tCivil Appeal Nos.  7047-7048  of 2002
\n\t(Arising out of S.L.P.[C] Nos.16204-16205 of 1996):\n<\/p>\n
\tDelay condoned.\n<\/p>\n
Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents in these appeals are also the N.M.R. workers in the
\nprojects of the Irrigation Department and their claims for regularization as well as
\npayment of salary on equal par with their counterparts in the regular
\nestablishment.\tThis claim, applying the ratio of the earlier orders, was also
\nsustained, resulting in the filing of these appeals by the State.\n<\/p>\n
Heard Shri Jana Kalyan Das, Advocate, for the State of Orissa, and Shri
\nG.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate, for the appellant-Rengali Power Project.\tMr.
\nBharat Sangal, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra and Mr. Y. Prabhakar
\nRao, Advocates, were heard for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the appellants placed strong reliance upon the
\ndecision reported in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors.
\n[(1996)11 SCC 77] in support of their stand, whereas the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents sought to place reliance upon the decisions reported in Chief
\nConservator of Forests & Anr. Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & Ors.
\n[(1996) 2 SCC 293] and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors.
\n[(1992)4 SCC 118] in support of their stand to justify the relief granted by the
\nHigh Court.  Reliance was also placed upon orders in SLP (C) No.4727\/93 dated
\n3.8.93; C.A. Nos. 2541-42\/94 dated 18.4.94 and C.A. Nos.2628-29\/94 dated
\n21.4.94.  The learned counsel for the respondents also sought to lay emphasis
\nby claiming that what they were asking for is not for any parity of treatment or
\nequal pay in comparison with their counterparts in the different organizations or
\nin different departments but equal pay on par with the regularly employed staff in
\ntheir own units or establishments and as such there could be no sufficient cause
\nor justification to deny an equal treatment to the respondents.\t In substance,
\nlearned counsel vehemently contended that the fact they were engaged as
\nN.M.R. workmen or as casuals on daily basis has no relevance or significance,
\nas long as they performed the same and identical job and work as that of the
\nregularly employed staff and consequently there was no justification to
\ndiscriminate or deny equal pay for them.  It was also claimed that the decision in
\nChief Conservator of Forests (supra) of a Bench consisting of three learned
\nJudges of this Court has to be preferred to the one rendered by a Bench of two
\nlearned Judges in Jasmer Singh’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
\nappearing on either side.  The decision in Jasmer Singh (supra) though by a
\nBench of two learned Judges consisting of A.M.Ahmadi,CJ., and Sujata V.
\nManohar, J., is directly on point, Sujata V. Manohar, J., speaking for the bench
\nand after a careful analysis of a catena of earlier decisions on the point, held as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
“10. The respondents, therefore, in the present
\nappeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be
\ntreated as on a par with persons in regular service of
\nthe State of Haryana holding similar posts.  Daily-\n<\/p>\n
rated workers are not required to possess the
\nqualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do
\nthey have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at
\nthe time of recruitment.  They are not selected in the
\nmanner in which regular employees are selected.\t In
\nother words, the requirements for selection are not as
\nrigorous.  There are also other provisions relating to
\nregular service such as the liability of a member of the
\nservice to be transferred, and his being subject to the
\ndisciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as
\nprescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not
\nsubjected to.  They cannot, therefore, be equated with
\nregular workmen for the purposes for their wages.\n<\/p>\n
Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay
\nscale of the regularly employed.\n<\/p>\n
11. The High Court was, therefore, not right in
\ndirecting that the respondents should be paid the
\nsame salary and allowances as are being paid to
\nregular employees holding similar posts with effect
\nfrom the dates when the respondents were employed.\n<\/p>\n
If a minimum wage is prescribed for such workers, the
\nrespondents would be entitled to it if it is more than
\nwhat they are being paid.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe decision in Chief Conservator of Forests (supra), on which strong
\nreliance has been placed for the respondents, was rendered by a Bench
\ncomprising A.M. Ahmadi, C.J., and B.L. Hansaria and S.C. Sen, JJ.  The
\nquestion as to the scales of pay to be paid to the N.M.R. workers and whether
\nthey should also be paid on equal par with the regularly employed staff, by the
\napplication of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ does not appear to have
\nbeen either in the centre of controversy or consideration in this decision.  As
\ncould be seen from the reported decision, two questions, which fell for
\nconsideration of the Bench, were as to whether the Forest Department of the
\nState Government is an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for the purposes of the Maharashtra
\nRecognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
\n1971, and whether the State Government had indulged in unfair labour practice
\nvisualized by Item 6 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Act, as alleged by the
\nworkers before the Industrial Court, in keeping such workers continuously for
\nyears on casual basis.\tThe Industrial Court, which adjudicated the claims,
\ngranted relief to make the workmen permanent with all the benefits of a
\npermanent worker, which would include payment of wages, etc. at the rate meant
\nfor a permanent worker.\t While adverting to the question as to whether the
\nfinding relating to the adoption of ‘unfair labour practice’ within the meaning of the
\nState Act and the relief granted on that basis called for any interference, this
\ncourt came to the conclusion that permanency was writ large on the face of both
\ntypes of work, and that permanent status was denied to the workers concerned
\ntherein with the object of denying higher rates as would be payable for
\npermanent workers, in violation of the provisions of the State Act.  Consequently,
\nthis Court declined to interfere.   It is in this context that the claim of the State that
\nif the casual employees to the tune of 1.4 lakhs have to be regularized all of a
\nsudden, it would involve a heavy financial commitments, keeping in view the
\nscales of pay, which have to be paid on their becoming permanent; that a
\npassing reference was made with reference to the scales of pay to be paid and
\nthat too only as and when they become permanent and not for the period when
\nthey were mere casuals.\t The conspicuous omission either to refer to or deal with
\nand consider any question based on `equal pay for equal work’ to workers even
\nas they stood employed as N.M.R. workers or advert to or notice any one of the
\ndecisions elaborately considered in the other decision reported in Jasmer Singh
\n(supra) as to the principles to be applied before doing so would inevitably go to
\nshow that the questions of the nature exhaustively considered and decided in the
\nlatter decision reported in Jasmer Singh (supra) were not at all the subject-
\nmatter for consideration or decision in the Chief Conservator of Forests case
\n(supra),.  This assumption is well fortified by the conclusions arrived at in
\nParagraph 29, which read as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
“We wish to say further that if Shri Bhandare’s
\nsubmission is taken to its logical end, the justification
\nfor paying even minimum wages could wither away,
\nleaving any employer, not to speak of model employer
\nlike the State, to exploit unemployed persons.\tTo be
\nfair to Shri Bhandare it may, however, be stated that the
\nlearned counsel did not extend his submissions this far,
\nbut we find it difficult to limit the submission of Shri
\nBhandare to payment of, say fair wages, as
\ndistinguished from minimum wages.  We have said so,
\nbecause if a pay scale has been provided for
\npermanent workmen that has been done by the State
\nGovernment keeping in view its legal obligations and
\nmust be one which had been recommended by the
\nState Pay Commission and accepted by the
\nGovernment.  We cannot deny this relief of permanency
\nto the respondents-workmen only because in that case
\nthey would be required to be paid wages meant for
\npermanent workers.  This right flows automatically from
\nthe relief of regularization to which no objection can
\nreasonably be taken, as already pointed out.  We
\nwould, however, observe that the relief made available
\nto the respondents is not one, which would be available
\nipso facto to all the casual employees either of the
\nForest Department or any other Department of the
\nState. Claim of casual employees for permanency or for
\nhigher pay shall have to be decided on the merits of
\ntheir own cases.”\t\t\t  (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tThe decision reported in Piara Singh (supra) is no authority for the
\nproposition that temporary, ad hoc or daily wages like N.M.Rs. should be treated
\non par for purposes of pay-scales with the regularly employed permanent staff in
\nthe establishment and merely envisaged a serious and sincere effort on the part
\nof the State to regularize such casual labourers or work-charged employees as
\nfar as and as early as possible, subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any,
\nprescribed for the post and subject also to the availability of the work meaning
\nthereby the post as well as scope for providing employment.  In paragraph 42 of
\nthe judgment, this Court, while setting aside the directions of the High Court,
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“With respect to direction No.8 (equal pay for equal
\nwork) we find the judgment singularly devoid of any
\ndiscussion.  The direction given is totally vague.  It
\ndoes not make it clear who will get what pay and on
\nwhat basis.  The said direction is liable to be set aside
\non this account and is, accordingly, set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
Though ‘equal pay for equal work’ is considered to be a concomitant of Article 14
\nas much as ‘equal pay for unequal work’ will also be a negation of that right,
\nequal pay would depend upon not only the nature or the volume of work, but also
\non the qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility as well and
\nthough the functions may be the same, but the responsibilities do make a real
\nand substantial difference.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn State of T.N. & Anr. Vs. M.R. Alagappan & Ors. [(1997) 4 SCC 401],
\nthis Court observed that substantial similarity in duties and responsibilities and
\ninterchangeability of posts may not also necessarily attract the principle of `equal
\npay for equal work’ when there are other distinguishing features like educational
\nqualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, status, nature of duties,
\nfunctions, measure of responsibility and over all duties and responsibilities even
\noutside duty hours.\tThe principles laid down in Jasmer Singh (supra) were also
\napplied and followed in the decision reported in Gujarat Agricultural University
\nVs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors. [(2001) 3 SCC 574].\n<\/p>\n
\tOn a careful consideration of the materials placed on record, we are of the
\nview that the principles firmly laid down in the well considered decision of
\nJasmer Singh (supra) squarely applied on all fours to the cases on hand and the
\nrespondents-workers would be entitled to only, apart from the regularization
\nordered for which the appellants have had no serious objections, the payment of
\nminimum wage prescribed for such workers if it is more than what they were
\nbeing paid and that the High Court was in serious error in directing that the
\nrespondents should be paid the same salary and allowances as were being paid
\nto the regular employees holding similar posts.\t The respondent-workers cannot
\nbe held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and
\npermanent staff, for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and
\nallowances.  The fact that no materials were placed before the High Court as to
\nthe nature of duties of either categories should have been viewed as a
\ndisentitling factor so far as the workers are concerned and dissuaded the High
\nCourt from embarking upon an inquiry in the abstract and with no factual basis
\nand not to empower the court to assume and presume equality in the absence of
\nproof to the contra or of any unequal nature of the work performed by them.  To
\nclaim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a
\nclear-cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before
\nbecoming eligible to claim rights on par with the other group vis–vis an alleged
\ndiscrimination.\t In the light of the decision directly on this issue rendered in
\nJasmer Singh (supra), we are unable to persuade ourselves to countenance the
\nclaim for minimum basic salary given in some unreported decisions brought to
\nour notice which appear on the face of it to be certain directions given on the
\npeculiar facts and circumstances of the same without an objective consideration
\nof any principle of law.  An order made to merely dispose of the case before court
\nby issuing certain directions on the facts and for the purposes of the said case,
\ncannot have the value or effect of any binding precedent and particularly in the
\nteeth of the decision in Jasmer Singh’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tFor all the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed and the orders
\nof the High Court are set aside insofar as the pay equal to that of the regular
\nemployed staff has been ordered to be given to the N.M.R.\/daily wager\/casual
\nworkers, as indicated above, to which they will not be eligible or entitled, till they
\nare regularized and taken as the permanent members of the establishment.  For
\nthe period prior to such permanent status\/regularization, they would be entitled to
\nbe paid only at the rate of the minimum wages prescribed or notified, if it is more
\nthan what they were being paid as ordered by this Court in Jasmer Singh’s case
\n(supra).  There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. … on 29 October, 2002 Author: D Raju Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, H.K. Sema. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7342 of 1993 PETITIONER: State of Orissa & Ors. Appellants RESPONDENT: Balaram Sahu & Ors., etc. etc. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. ... on 29 October, 2002 - 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\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. ... on 29 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-23T06:45:01+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\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. … on 29 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-23T06:45:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2900,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002\",\"name\":\"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. ... on 29 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-23T06:45:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. … on 29 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. ... on 29 October, 2002 - 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\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. ... on 29 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-23T06:45:01+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\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. … on 29 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-23T06:45:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002"},"wordCount":2900,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002","name":"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. ... on 29 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-23T06:45:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-ors-appellants-vs-balaram-sahu-ors-etc-etc-on-29-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Orissa & Ors. Appellants vs Balaram Sahu & Ors., Etc. Etc. … on 29 October, 2002"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/160420","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=160420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}