{"id":167078,"date":"2010-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-30T05:24:01","modified_gmt":"2016-01-29T23:54:01","slug":"chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4431\/2010\t 9\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4431 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4432 of 2010\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4436 of 2010\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCHHAGAN\nHIRA RAMANI &amp; 5 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nEXECUTIVE\nENGINEER - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nAppearance\n: \nMR\nH.S.MULIA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 6. \nMS SACHI MATHUR, AGP for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tConsidering<br \/>\nsubmissions made by both learned advocates, RULE.<br \/>\n Leaned AGP Ms. Mathur waives service of notice of rule on behalf of<br \/>\nrespondent   State Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording<br \/>\nto petitioner, these petitions have been filed challenging the award<br \/>\npassed by Labour Court, Jamnagar where reinstatement has been granted<br \/>\nas a fresh employee and without continuity of service. According to<br \/>\npetitioners, they were appointed as daily wages on various years and<br \/>\nworking with respondent continuity and each petitioners had put more<br \/>\nthan 240 days continue service with the respondent. The service of<br \/>\npetitioners were terminated orally by respondent on various dates,<br \/>\ntherefore, dispute has been raised by petitioners before Labour<br \/>\nCourt, Jamnagar. The Labour Court, Jamnagar has passed common award<br \/>\non 10th<br \/>\nMarch 2010 whereby Labour Court has granted continuity of service in<br \/>\nfavour of two employees and in case of present petitioners means rest<br \/>\nof six employees, Labour Court has denied the relief of continuity of<br \/>\nservice and granted reinstatement as a fresh employee without any<br \/>\nreasons and justification. Therefore, present petition is filed by<br \/>\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\ndispute which has been raised by present petitioners along with other<br \/>\ntwo employees in all eight workmen being a Reference No.144 of 2005<br \/>\nto 150 of 2005 and 89 of 2006 which has been decided by Labour Court<br \/>\nby common award dated 10th<br \/>\nMarch 2010. The Labour Court has granted reinstatement with<br \/>\ncontinuity of service in favour of Shri Chhagan Pola Garasar and Shri<br \/>\nGordhan Velaji Mendapara, but, in respect to present petitioners,<br \/>\nreinstatement has been granted as a fresh employees without<br \/>\ncontinuity of service and without back wages of interim period.<br \/>\nBefore Labour Court, all references were consolidated and statement<br \/>\nof workmen were filed by petitioners in support of their dispute.<br \/>\nAccording to petitioners workmen, they were employed by respondent as<br \/>\nper facts stated in statement of claim from 1986, 1991, 1987, 1983,<br \/>\n1993, 1989, 1984, 1989, respectively and their services were<br \/>\nterminated in the year of 1991, 1995, 1991, 1987, 1995, 1994, 1991<br \/>\nand 1990, respectively. Therefore, according to petitioners, they<br \/>\nremained in service for aforesaid period with respondent as a<br \/>\ncontinue service completed 240 days continue service established by<br \/>\nworkmen before Labour Court, Jamnagar, even though, services were<br \/>\nterminated by respondent by violating mandatory provisions of Sec.25F<br \/>\nof ID Act, 1947. Further contention was raised by workmen that at the<br \/>\ntime when their services were terminated, junior employees were<br \/>\nremained in service and subsequent to their termination, fresh<br \/>\nemployees have been taken in service, therefore, respondent has<br \/>\nviolated Sec.25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The<br \/>\nrespondent has filed written statement vide Ex.5 and Ex.9 in respect<br \/>\nto each reference against the claim of workman denying averments made<br \/>\nin statement of claim. Before Labour Court, in written statement,<br \/>\ncontentions were raised by respondent that none of the workman has<br \/>\ncompleted 240 days continue service and they obtained the job<br \/>\nelsewhere and whenever work was available, they were given work.<br \/>\nAccordingly, their presence have been marked in muster roll and<br \/>\nconsidering the working days mentioned in muster roll, they were not<br \/>\nremained in continue service with respondent and completed 240 days.<br \/>\nSome of the muster roll have been produced by respondent before<br \/>\nLabour Court and certain decisions of this Court as well as Apex<br \/>\nCourt has been relied upon by respondent. The petitioners workmen<br \/>\nhave produced affidavit in support of their case at Ex.11, Ex.10,<br \/>\nEx.5\/A and Ex.9 and their evidence have been closed after<br \/>\ncross-examination made by respondent advocate. On behalf of<br \/>\nrespondent, one Pravinbhai Jivrambhai was examined vide Ex.25 which<br \/>\nwas cross-examined by Advocate of workmen.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter<br \/>\nconsidering entire evidence on record and submissions made by both<br \/>\nlearned advocates, issues have been framed by Labour Court in Para 8<br \/>\nwhether workmen have completed 240 days continue service or not. The<br \/>\nfinding is given by Labour Court that except workmen Chhagan Hira<br \/>\nRamani, Dadubhai Devubha Jadeja, Bachu Natha Natada and Gordhan Velji<br \/>\nMendapara, remaining workmen have not completed 240 days continue<br \/>\nservice with respondent, but, the finding has been given that Karshan<br \/>\nRambhai, Chhagan Pola, Bharat Ganda and Rajesh Harji have not worked<br \/>\nwith respondent. After termination of workmen, whether respondent has<br \/>\ngiven opportunity to concerned workmen for re-employment at the time<br \/>\nwhen fresh employees have been recruited, the answer is given by<br \/>\nLabour Court is &#8216;NO&#8217; and whether workmen are entitled any amount of<br \/>\nback wages or not ? The Labour Court has also not granted any amount<br \/>\nof back wages in favour of workmen. These facts have been discussed<br \/>\nby Labour Court considering evidence which are on record. Vide Ex.7,<br \/>\nworkmen have demanded documents from respondent for the year of 1986<br \/>\nto 1991; muster roll, pay register and seniority list where Labour<br \/>\nCourt has passed an order directing the respondent to produce it<br \/>\nwithin 14 days or to file affidavit, but, certain documents have been<br \/>\nproduced by respondent, but, that were not complete documents before<br \/>\nLabour Court. Therefore, on the basis of this evidence, Labour Court<br \/>\nhas come to conclusion that workmen have completed 240 days continue<br \/>\nservice with respondent, because, considering evidence of workmen and<br \/>\nalso considering evidence of Pravinbhai Ex.25 and not produced entire<br \/>\nrecords and no appointment order has been issued and no other<br \/>\ndocuments have been supplied like identity card, pay slip and muster<br \/>\ncard to concerned workmen, therefore, 240 days has been established<br \/>\nby workmen before Labour Court. Considering evidence of Pravinbhai<br \/>\nJivrambhai Ex.25, fresh 7 to 8 employees have been recruited by<br \/>\nrespondent, therefore, Sec.25H has been found to be violated relying<br \/>\nupon decision of this Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/833757\/\">Gujarat State Machine Tools<br \/>\nCorporation Ltd., Bhavnagar v. Dipak J. Desai<\/a> reported in 1987 (1)<br \/>\nGLR 387 and Labour Court has come to conclusion that Sec.25H has been<br \/>\nviolated by respondent. The service has been terminated by respondent<br \/>\nand workmen have not abandoned the job, therefore, Labour Court has<br \/>\ncome to conclusion that service has been illegally terminated by<br \/>\nrespondent, therefore, workmen are entitled right of reinstatement in<br \/>\nservice as discussed while deciding Issue No.4. Thereafter, Labour<br \/>\nCourt has considered delay in deciding reference and also delay in<br \/>\nraising industrial disputes while considering decision of this Court<br \/>\nas discussed above. Ultimately, Labour Court has considered one<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/403161\/\">State of Gujarat and Ors. v.<br \/>\nBhikhubha Julubhai Vala and<\/a> considered that if the dispute against<br \/>\ntermination raised belatedly by workmen and length of service is not<br \/>\nmuch more, then, such employees can be directed to be reinstated as<br \/>\nfresh employees, therefore, only on that ground, considering less<br \/>\nnumber of years service of present petitioners, direction has been<br \/>\nissued by Labour Court to reinstate as a fresh employee and rest of<br \/>\ntwo workmen have been reinstated with continuity of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Mulia submitted that in reported decision of this Court<br \/>\nin case <a href=\"\/doc\/118622283\/\">State of Gujarat v. Bhikhubhai Julubhai Vala,<\/a> dispute has<br \/>\nbeen raised belatedly and workman has completed only 82 days<br \/>\npresence, but, in facts of this case, present petitioners have<br \/>\ncompleted more than 240 days continue service as finding given by<br \/>\nLabour Court while deciding Issue No.2 and looking to facts given in<br \/>\nstatement of claim by workmen, each workman has completed more than<br \/>\nfour years service with respondent and against that facts, no<br \/>\nrebuttal evidence has been produced by respondent, even though,<br \/>\nLabour Court has committed gross error in denying reinstatement with<br \/>\ncontinuity of service to present petitioners. Therefore, learned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Mulia submitted that Labour Court has committed<br \/>\napparently error in granting discriminatory relief<br \/>\n     amongst workmen, for that, there is no justification or reasons<br \/>\ngiven by Labour Court. Therefore, it requires interference by this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nAGP Ms. Mathur submitted that Labour Court has rightly examined<br \/>\nmatters and considered length of service which is found to be short<br \/>\nin respect to present petitioners, therefore, Labour Court has<br \/>\nrightly considered decisions of this Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/403161\/\">State of<br \/>\nGujarat v. Bhikhubha<\/a> (supra) and not granted continuity of service in<br \/>\nfavour of petitioners, for that, according to her submission, Labour<br \/>\nCourt has not committed any error which requires interference by this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI<br \/>\nhave considered submissions made by both learned advocates and<br \/>\nperused entire award passed by Labour Court. Only relevant discussion<br \/>\nis made at Page 52 internal Page 15 of award dated 10th<br \/>\nMarch 2010 where considering the decision of this Court where only 82<br \/>\ndays presence was there and there is a delay in raising dispute where<br \/>\nthis Court has granted fresh appointment is not applicable to the<br \/>\nfacts of presence case, because, present petitioner i.e. Chhagan Hira<br \/>\nRamani, Karshan Ram Natada, Dadubhai Devubha, Bachu Natha Natada,<br \/>\nBharat Ganda Natada and Rajesh Harji Tarapada have completed more<br \/>\nthan 4 to 5 years continue service with respondent, for that, a<br \/>\nspecific finding has been given by Labour Court while deciding Issue<br \/>\nNo.2 and also come to conclusion that each workman has completed<br \/>\ncontinue service of 240 days and respondent has failed to prove or<br \/>\nestablish before Labour Court that workman has not completed 240 days<br \/>\ncontinue service with respondent. So, each petitioner has completed<br \/>\n240 days continue service because<br \/>\ncomplete record was not produced by respondent and accordingly, Issue<br \/>\nNo.2 has been decided by Labour Court and while deciding Issue No.4,<br \/>\nservice of workmen have been terminated without following due process<br \/>\nof law and Sec.25H has been violated by respondent, therefore,<br \/>\naccording to my opinion, interference is required by this Court in<br \/>\ndiscriminatory relief which has been granted by Labour Court in<br \/>\nrespect of present petitioners and accordingly, when reinstatement<br \/>\nhas been granted, then, question of granting employment as a fresh<br \/>\nemployee does not arise. The Labour Court has committed gross error<br \/>\nin granting reinstatement in favour of petitioner as a fresh employee<br \/>\nwithout any legal justification and without giving any reasons in<br \/>\nsupport of its conclusion. Therefore, case of all workmen, those who<br \/>\nhave raised dispute, was a common case based on common grounds, then,<br \/>\nquestion of bifurcation or giving discriminatory relief between them<br \/>\ndoes not arise. Therefore, direction against present petitioners that<br \/>\nthey are reinstated in service as a fresh employee, that part is<br \/>\nrequired to be quashed and set aside which is not in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw and contrary to record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\nonly direction granting reinstatement as a fresh employee in respect<br \/>\nof petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction while<br \/>\nmodifying the award in question in respect of present petitioners<br \/>\nthat all the petitioners are entitled the relief of reinstatement<br \/>\nwith continuity of service to original<br \/>\npost as Labour Court has not applied its mind while giving direction<br \/>\nin respect of present petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccordingly,<br \/>\naward passed by Labour Court in respect of present petitioners in<br \/>\neach reference dated 10th<br \/>\nMarch 2010 is hereby modified and accordingly, directed to the<br \/>\nrespondent to reinstate each petitioner in service with continuity of<br \/>\nservice on their original post similarly as granted in favour of<br \/>\nChhagan Pola Garsar and Gordhan Velji Mendapara by Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccordingly,<br \/>\nrule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each petition and<br \/>\naward passed by Labour Court dated 10th<br \/>\nMarch 2010 in respect of each petition is accordingly, modified to<br \/>\nthe aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4431\/2010 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4431 of 2010 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4432 of 2010 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4436 of 2010 ========================================================= [&hellip;]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-29T23:54:01+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-29T23:54:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1845,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-29T23:54:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 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":"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-29T23:54:01+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-29T23:54:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010"},"wordCount":1845,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010","name":"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-29T23:54:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhagan-vs-executive-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chhagan vs Executive on 13 April, 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\/167078","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=167078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}