{"id":169186,"date":"2010-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-02T13:22:18","modified_gmt":"2018-11-02T07:52:18","slug":"mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road … on 22 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road … on 22 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                       RESERVED\n\n               Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2269 of 2006 (S\/S)\n\n       Mohd. Ashfaq Siddiqui                                    ........ Petitioner\n                                   Vs.\n       The Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C.             ...... .....Opposite Parties.\n\nHon'ble B. K. Narayana, J.\n<\/pre>\n
       Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Traffic Inspector in the
\nerstwhile U.P. Government Roadways on 30.11.1965, thereafter the petitioner
\nwas posted on different posts and performed his duties in different capacities
\nduring the period of his service as Assistant Traffic Inspector Grade-1\/Junior
\nStation Incharge\/Senior Station Incharge and eventually retired from the post
\nof Traffic Superintendent. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application
\nfor grant of pension in the prescribed proforma through the competent
\nauthority. Subsequently a letter was issued on 14.12.2001 (Annexure No. 6 to
\nthis writ petition) by the      Manager Pension to the Regional Manager,
\nU.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow requiring the petitioner to complete certain formalities
\nso that his pension may be sanctioned. By the aforesaid letter, it was brought
\non record that the service period of the petitioner from 05.05.1978 ot
\n30.09.2001 was pensionable and for the said period the share of the employer
\n(Corporation) was to be deposited by the department. Thereafter several
\ncommunications were exchanged between the authorities of the department
\nand ultimately the employer’s share was deposited on 26.06.2006 and thus,
\nall the required formalities for sanction\/release of pension were completed but
\nopposite parties failed to sanction the pension and the other post retiral
\nbenefits of the petitioner. Ultimately in respect of granting pension and other
\npost of retiral benefits to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 passed the
\nimpugned order on 13.10.2005 declaring that the post which the petitioner
\nheld was a non pensionable post and gratuity had been sanctioned treating
\nhim to have worked on a non pensionable post. It is            the     order dated
\n13.12.2005 passed by the respondent, which is impugned in the instant writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
       The opposite parties filed their counter affidavit disputing the petitioner’s
\nclaim for grant of pension on the ground that prior to the date of amalgamation
\n                                                                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
\/ enforcement of U.P. State Roadway Organisation (Abolition of Posts and
\nAbsorption of Employees Rules (1982) the petitioner had not worked on the
\npost of Junior Station Incharge and the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on
\nwhich he was working was a non-pensionable post and as such the petitioner
\nwas not entitled to pension.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar objection as
\nthe one raised by the Corporation in the instant writ- petition was raised by the
\ncorporation justifying its decision to deny pension to similarly placed Traffic
\nInspectors as the petitioner was considered and rejected by this Court in Civil
\nMisc. Writ Petition No. 44772 of 2006, Ram Singh Singraur and others
\nVs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2007 (3) LBESR 47 (All) and
\nsince the claim of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid decision, the
\npetitioner is also entitled to be the same benefit which has been granted to the
\npetitioners of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 44772 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel appearing for the corporation made a feeble attempt to
\nargue that the ratio rendered in the case of Ram Singh Singraur and others
\n(supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case but upon going through
\nthe aforesaid decision, the pleading of the parties and the documents on
\nrecord, this court is of the view that the submissions made by learned counsel
\nfor the petitioner are correct and the contentions raised by learned counsel for
\nthe corporation have no force and are liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      This Court while considering an identical issue in the case of Ram
\nSingh Singraur (supra), observed as under in paragraph nos. 4 to 11 of the
\njudgement given in the said case:-\n<\/p>\n
              ” 4. The U.P. Government Roadways was a Department of the
\n              Government of Uttar Pradesh and was engaged in providing
\n              transport facilities. By a Government Order dated 28.10.1960, all
\n              posts of the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the
\n              traffic side were declared to be pensionable. The Uttar Pradesh
\n              Road Transport Corporation (here-in-after referred to as the
\n              Corporation) came into being with effect from 1.6.1972 in
\n              pursuance of section 45 of the State Transport Act passed by the
\n              Parliament. On the creation of the Corporation, all the
\n              employees, including the petitioner, serving in U.P. Government
\n              Roadways were sent to the Corporation on deputation with a
\n                                                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
   stipulation that service conditions of the employees of the U.P.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   government Roadways would not be inferior in the Corporation.
\n   The Board of Directors of the Corporation passed a resolution on
\n   3.3.1978 upgrading the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to
\n   Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 and placed it in the pay scale of
\n   Junior   Station   Incharge.    Both    the   posts   were    made
\n   interchangeable vide notification dated 5.5.1978 and the Deputy
\n   General Manager was notified to be the common appointing
\n   authority for both. It is not denied that the petitioner remained an
\n   employee of U.P. Government Roadways till he was absorbed in
\n   the Corporation with effect from 28.7.1982. Regulation 39 of
\n   U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Employees other than
\n   Officers) Service Regulation, 1981 stipulates that only those
\n   employees of the erstwhile Government Roadways who held a
\n   pensionable posts prior to their absorption in the Corporation
\n   would be entitled to pension and none of the officers of the
\n   Corporation would be entitled to that benefit.\n<\/p>\n
5. The core issue thus is, whether the petitioner was holding a
\n   pensionable post prior to his absorption in the Corporation?\n<\/p>\n
   6. A perusal of the notification dated 5.5.1978 shows that all the
\n   posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors were upgraded to Traffic
\n   Inspection Grade-1 and were made interchangeable with the
\n   posts of Junior Station Incharge. On the said date the petitioner
\n   like all other Traffic Inspectors were thus upgraded to Traffic
\n   Inspector, Grade-1 and they were liable to be posted as Junior
\n   Station Incharge also. The effect was that the posts of Traffic
\n   Inspector, Grade-1 and Junior Station Incharge was integrated
\n   into a common cadre having one appointing authority i.e. the
\n   Deputy General Manager. However, Sri Sharma contends that
\n   the integration of the two posts were only for the sake of
\n   convenience and to streamline the work of the Corporation and it
\n   did not grant any benefit applicable to the post of Junior Station
\n   Incharge. The argument does not appear to be correct and is
\n   belied by the aforesaid notification itself. There is nothing in the
\n   notification to suggest even remotely that notwithstanding the
\n   integration, Traffic Inspectors would be deprived of any benefits
\n                                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
arising thereof. No doubt the notification states that the
\narrangement could be withdrawn at any time but, there is
\nnothing on record nor it has been argued at the bar that the said
\nnotification was ever withdrawn prior to the absorption of the
\npetitioner in the Corporation. To the contrary, the petitioner was
\ngiven the grade of the Junior Station Incharge vide order dated
\n24.5.1978. Further, vide resolution dated 30.8.1979 the
\nCorporation decided to transfer all those Traffic Inspector,
\nGrade-1 who had completed the age of 52 years to the post of
\nJunior Station Incharge and those Station Incharges who had not
\ncompleted the age of 52 years, were transferred to the post of
\nTraffic Inspector, Grade-1. Therefore, for all practical purposes,
\nthe petitioner was entitled to all the benefits applicable to Junior
\nStation Incharge. Even after the absorption of the petitioner with
\neffect from 28.7.1982 the Corporation kept on taking action in
\nconsonance with       the   notification   dated   5.5.1978. The
\nCorporation by its resolution dated 23.3.1985 held that the posts
\nof Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 were redesignated as Traffic
\nInspector and simultaneously it resolved to abolish 193 posts of
\nTraffic Inspector creating 150 posts of Junior Station Incharges.
\nIt further resolved that all the newly created 150 posts of Junior
\nStation Incharges would be filled up from the Traffic Inspectors.
\nIn fact, all those Assistant Traffic Inspectors who were promoted
\nto the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-1 in 1978 merged into the
\ngrade of Junior Station Incharges and all Junior Station
\nIncharges appointed after 5.5.1978 were treated to be junior to
\nthem. Thus, the likes of the petitioner were even given seniority
\nin the cadre of Station Incharge from 5.5.1978 itself.\n<\/p>\n
7. It is then urged on behalf of the Corporation that the
\nnotification dated 5.5.1978 cannot be said to have amended the
\nGovernment Order dated 28.10.1960 and the petitioner remained
\na government servant till his absorption and thus Corporation
\ncould not have changed the service conditions of such
\nemployees. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of
\nthis Court rendered in the case of Jagdish Prasad Gupta and
\nothers Vs. State of U.P. and others [1980 (VI) A.L.R. 81.]
\n                                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
8. A perusal of the decision in Jagidish Prasad’s case would
\nshow that the issue in consideration before the Division Bench
\nwas as to whether a claim petition lay before the Public Service
\nTribunal under U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 with
\nregard to challenge of termination of Government Roadways
\nEmployees on deputation to the Corporation. The Division Bench
\nheld that prior to absorption of such Government Roadways
\nEmployees in the Corporation, he remained a government
\nservant and as such the claim petition under the U.P. Public
\nServices Tribunal Act, 1976 would be maintainable before the
\nTribunal. This case does not help the cause of the Corporation.
\nAfter the petitioner was placed in deputation in the Corporation,
\nthe Corporation became entitled to regulate, control and
\nsupervise the work of the deputees. The Corporation has failed to
\npoint out any law disabling the Corporation from changing the
\nservice conditions of the deputationist. The only bar imposed was
\nthat in no case the conditions of service of the deputationist
\nwould in any way be inferior to those which were applicable
\nunder the U.P. Government Roadways. The Government Order
\ndated 28.10.1960 categorically states that the supervisory staff of
\nthe rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side
\nwould be admitted to pension. The Corporation by its
\nnotification dated 5.5.1978 upgraded the post of Assistant Traffic
\nInspector to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 and integrated
\nthe said post in the post of Junior Station Incharge and thus the
\npost of Traffic Inspector Grade-1 became equivalent in rank to
\nthe post of Junior Station Incharge. Once the two posts were
\nintegrated into a common cadre with the same pay scale and
\ncommon appointing authority, it cannot be said that the post of
\nTraffic Inspector Grade-1 was in any way inferior in rank to that
\nof Junior Station Incharge. If the argument of the Corporation
\nwere to be accepted, it would lead to absurd results because if a
\nmember of the cadre was absorbed in the Corporation while
\nworking as a Junior Station Incharge he would be admitted to
\npension but if he is absorbed from the post of Traffic Inspector
\nGrade-II he would be denied the said benefit.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
9. It is then urged that in fact the petitioner never worked on the
\npost of Junior Station Incharge, therefore, they were not entitled
\nto pension.\n<\/p>\n
10. The worth of the argument has already been commented
\nupon, but let us examine it a bit further.\n<\/p>\n
11. It is common ground that the provision for pension to the
\nemployees of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways is
\ncovered by the Government Order dated 28.10.1960. The
\nrelevant category (b) states that ” the supervisory staff to the
\nrank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side”
\nwould be entitled for pension. It does not speak about ‘post’ of
\nJunior Incharge but ‘rank’ of Junior Station Incharge. Argument
\nof the Corporation implies that until and unless a person holds
\nthe post of Junior Station Incharge, he would not be entitled to
\npension. The argument does not appear to be correct. The words
\n‘post’ and ‘rank’ have a very different meaning in service
\njurisprudence. The Apex Court in the Case of N.C. Dalwadi Vs.
\nState of Gujarat (AIR 1987 S.C. 1933) while considering a case
\nof compulsory retirement of a Superintendent Engineer had an
\noccasion to decipher the meaning of the word ‘rank’ and gave it
\nits ordinary meaning as “grade or status”. Further, the Apex
\nCourt in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab (AIR
\n1995 S.C. 1371) while considering the question of relevant ‘post’,
\nfound that the “word post means the appointment, job, office or
\nemployment……..” Therefore, also it would be irrelevant whether
\nor not the petitioner actually worked as Junior Station Incharge.
\nOnce the Corporation has upgraded the post of Traffic Inspector
\nGrade-1 to the rank of Junior Station Incharge, they would be
\nentitled to the benefit of the said Government Order dated
\n28.10.1960. The Court has already noted above that the two
\nposts had been integrated into a common cadre and made
\ninterchangeable which was followed subsequently. ”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
       After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
\nthe parties and perused the record, this court is of the view that the the
\ndecision of this Court in the case of Ram Singh Singraur (supra) applies with
\nfull force to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is entitled to the
\nsame benefit which has been granted to the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ
\nPetition No. 44772 of 2006 Ram Singh Singraur’s (supra) case.\n<\/p>\n
       For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
\n13.12.2005 passed by Additional Managing Director, U.P. State Road
\nTransport Corporation, Lucknow is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are
\ndirected to pay the entire arrears of pension to the petitioner together with
\ninterest @ 6% per annum within a period of 6 months from today and to pay
\nhis pension regularly.\n<\/p>\n
Dt. 22.01.2010
\nY.K.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road … on 22 January, 2010 RESERVED Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2269 of 2006 (S\/S) Mohd. Ashfaq Siddiqui …….. Petitioner Vs. The Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. …… …..Opposite Parties. Hon’ble B. K. Narayana, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road ... on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road ... on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-02T07:52:18+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road … on 22 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-02T07:52:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2232,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road ... on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-02T07:52:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road … on 22 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road ... on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road ... on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-02T07:52:18+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road … on 22 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-02T07:52:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010"},"wordCount":2232,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010","name":"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road ... on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-02T07:52:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ashfaq-siddiqui-vs-managing-director-u-p-state-road-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd.Ashfaq Siddiqui vs Managing Director U.P.State Road … on 22 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169186","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=169186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}