{"id":171026,"date":"2006-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006"},"modified":"2016-08-25T16:42:14","modified_gmt":"2016-08-25T11:12:14","slug":"chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, A.K.Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4790 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nChairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJaswant Singh & Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nDr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & A.K.MATHUR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
[Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.6207 of 2006]
\nWITH
\n CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4791-4887  of 2006
\n [ Arising out of  S.L.P. (c)  Nos. 6296,  6380,  6382, 6384,
\n 6386, 6388, 6389, 6390,  6391, 6392, 6393, 6395, 6396,
\n 6397, 6398,  6400, 6401, 6403, 6404, 6405, 6406, 6408,
\n 6409, 6415, 6418, 6431,  6432,  6433, 6437, 6445,6448,
\n 6475,  6864,  6914,  7357,  7394,  8976,  9265,    11828,
\n 9373, 10089,5208, 5321, 5322, 5339, 5340, 5343,5360,
\n 5369, 5373,5379,5383,7122,12975, 9968, 9980, 11830,
\n 9998,  10003, 10072,   12000,   12003,   12001,  11952,
\n 11953,   12892,  12915,  14354,  12917,  12918, 12970,
\n 14350,  14355,  14349,  13225,  14377 , 14348,  14352,
\n 14353,  14816,  14817,  8587,  8619,  8633, 8676, 8726,
\n 8727,  8733,  8737,  8752,  8753,  8801,  8810,    11870,
\n 11871, 11866 & 11860 of 2006]<\/p>\n
A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll this batch of appeals involve similar questions of law and
\nfact, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll these respondents are  the employees of the Uttar Pradesh
\nJal Nigam ( hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Nigam’)  and they
\nwere retired on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years.
\nSome of them filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at
\nAllahabad challenging the retirement of the employees of the Nigam
\non attaining the age of 58 years whereas the State Government
\nemployees were allowed to continue up to the age of 60 years  and
\ntherefore, they should also be allowed to continue up to the age of 60
\nyears.  The writ petitions filed before the High Court failed and
\nagainst that Civil Appeal No.7840 of 2002 and batch of other appeals
\nwere filed before this Court.  This Court disposed of the  case of
\nHarwindra Kumar  along with other appeals and held that employees
\nof Nigam are entitled to continue up to 60 years. This has been
\nreported in (2005) 13 SCC 300.  The operative portion of the said
\njudgment  reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” 10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of
\nthe view that so long as Regulation 31 of the
\nRegulations is not amended, 60 years which is the
\nage of superannuation of government servants
\nemployed under the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be
\napplicable to the employees of the Nigam. However,
\nit would be open to the Nigam with the previous
\napproval of the State Government  to make suitable
\namendment  in Regulation 31  and alter the service
\nconditions of employees of the Nigam, including their
\nage of superannuation. It is needless to say that if it
\nis so done, the same shall be prospective.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.  For the foregoing reasons, the appeals
\nas well as writ petitions are allowed, orders passed
\nby the High Court dismissing the writ petitions as well
\nas those by the Nigam directing that the appellants of
\nthe civil appeals and the petitioners of the writ
\npetitions would superannuate upon completion of the
\nage of 58 years are set aside and it is directed that in
\ncase the employees have been allowed to continue
\nup to  the age of 60 years by  virtue of some interim
\norder, no recovery shall be made from them but in
\ncase, however, they have not been allowed to
\ncontinue after completing the age of 58 years by
\nvirtue of erroneous decision taken by the Nigam for
\nno fault of theirs, they would be entitled to payment
\nof salary for the remaining period up to the age of 60
\nyears which must be paid to them within a period of
\nthree months from the date of receipt of  copy of this
\norder by the Nigam. There shall be no order as to
\ncosts.”\n<\/p>\n
It appears that during the pendency of the appeals and writ
\npetitions before this Court and after disposal of the same by this
\nCourt, a spate of writ petitions followed in the High Court by the
\nemployees who had retired long back. Some of the petitions were
\nfiled by the employees who retired on attaining the age of 58 years
\nlong back. However, some were lucky to get interim orders allowing
\nthem to continue  in service. Number of writ petitions were filed  in the
\nHigh Court in 2005 on various dates  after the judgment in the case of
\nHarwindra Kumar (supra) and some between 2002 and 2005. All
\nthose writ petitions were disposed of in the light of the judgment in the
\ncase of Harwindra Kumar (supra) and relief was given to them  for
\ncontinuing in service up to the age of 60 years. Hence, all these
\nappeals arise against various orders passed by the High Court from
\ntime to time.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the principal issue is concerned, that has been settled
\nby this Court. Therefore, there is no quarrel over the legal proposition.
\nBut the only question is grant of relief to such other persons who
\nwere not vigilant and did not wake up  to challenge their retirement
\nand accepted the same  but filed writ petitions after the judgment of
\nthis Court in the case of Harwindra Kumar (supra). Whether they are
\nentitled to same relief or not ?  Therefore, a serious question that
\narises for consideration is whether the employees who did not wake
\nup to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected
\ntheir post retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in
\nthe light of the subsequent decision delivered by this Court ?\n<\/p>\n
The question of delay and laches  has been examined by this
\nCourt in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been
\nconsidered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary
\nrelief under Article 226 of the Constitution.  When  a person who is
\nnot vigilant  of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his
\nwrit petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same
\nrelief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly
\nsituated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his
\nretirement which was said to be made on attaining  the age of 58
\nyears.  A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed
\nout that about 9 writ petitions were filed by  the employees of the
\nNigam  before their retirement wherein their retirement was
\nsomewhere between 30.6.2005 and 31.7.2005. Two writ petitions
\nwere filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were
\ngranted interim order. Thereafter a spate of  writ petitions followed in
\nwhich employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
\nand 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 & 2006 much after
\ntheir retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same
\nrelief or not ?\n<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel for the appellants has invited our
\nattention to various decisions to impress upon that persons who are
\nguilty of such laches and acquiesced with the situation should not be
\ngranted any relief because it is going to cost  the Nigam a heavy
\nfinancial burden to the tune of Rs.17,80, 43,108\/-. Therefore, relief
\nshould be confined to those persons who were continuing  in service
\nand filed their writ petitions in time but not to all and sundry  who
\nwoke up  to file  the writ petitions much after their retirement.  In this
\nconnection, our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in the
\ncase of  M\/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a> reported
\nin (1989) 2 SCC 356, wherein their Lordships observed that those
\npeople who were sitting on the fence till somebody else took up the
\nmatter to the court  for refund of duty, cannot be given the benefit.  In
\nthat context, their Lordships held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
” Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had
\nnot pursued for several  years. Petitioners were not
\nvigilant but were content  to be dormant and chose to
\nsit on the fence till somebody else’s case came to be
\ndecided. Their case cannot be considered on the
\nanalogy of one where a law had been declared
\nunconstitutional and void by a court, so as to enable
\npersons to recover monies paid under the
\ncompulsion of a law later so declared void. There is
\nalso an unexplained, inordinate delay in preferring
\nthe present writ petition which is brought after a year
\nafter the first rejection. As observed by the Court in
\nDurga Prashad case, the exchange position of this
\ncountry and the policy of the government regarding
\ninternational trade varies from year to year.  In these
\nmatters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved
\nby orders of the government should approach the
\nHigh Court after exhausting  the remedies provided
\nby law, rule or order with utmost expedition.
\nTherefore, these delays are sufficient to persuade
\nthe Court to decline to interfere. If a right of appeal is
\navailable, this order rejecting the writ petition shall
\nnot prejudice petitioners’ case in any such appeal. ”\n<\/p>\n
\tOur attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in the
\ncase of  State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M.Kotrayya & Ors.<\/a> reported in
\n(1996) 6 SCC 267.  In that case the respondents woke up to claim
\nthe relief which was granted to their colleagues  by the Tribunal  with
\nan application to condone the delay. The Tribunal condoned the
\ndelay. Therefore, the State approached this Court and this Court after
\nconsidering the matter observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t”  Although it is not necessary to give an
\nexplanation for the delay which occurred within the
\nperiod mentioned in sub-section (1) or (2) of Section
\n21,  explanation should be given for the delay which
\noccasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid
\nrespective period applicable  to the appropriate case
\nand the Tribunal should satisfy itself  whether the
\nexplanation offered was proper.   In the instant case,
\nthe explanation offered was that  they came to know
\nof the relief granted by the Tribunal in August 1989
\nand that they filed the petition immediately thereafter.
\nThat is not a proper explanation at all. What was
\nrequired of them to explain under  sub-sections (1)
\nand (2)  was as to why they could not avail of the
\nremedy of redressal of their grievances before the
\nexpiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1)
\nor (2). That was not the explanation given. Therefore,
\nthe Tribunal was wholly unjustified in condoning the
\ndelay.”\n<\/p>\n
Similarly,  in the case of Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana
\n& ors.<\/a> reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538, this Court reaffirmed the rule if a
\nperson chose to sit over the matter and then woke up after the
\ndecision of the Court, then such person cannot stand to benefit. In
\nthat case it was observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” The delay disentitles a party to
\ndiscretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of
\nthe Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over
\ntheir rights for long and woke up when they had the
\nimpetus from Vir Pal Singh Chauhan case. The
\nappellants’ desperate attempt to redo  the seniority is
\nnot amenable to judicial review at this belated stage.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of  Union of India & Ors. v. C.K. Dharagupta & Ors.<\/a>
\nreported in (1997) 3 SCC 395,  it was observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” We, however, clarify that in view of our
\nfinding that the judgment of the Tribunal in R.P.Joshi
\ngives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said
\njudgment of the Tribunal  cannot be extended to any
\nother person. The respondent C.K.Dharagupta (since
\nretired)  is seeking benefit of Joshi case. In view of
\nour finding that the benefit of the judgment of the
\nTribunal dated 17-3-1987 could only be given to
\nJoshi and nobody else, even Dharagupta is not
\nentitled to any relief.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy & Ors.<\/a>
\nreported in (2004) 1 SCC 347,  their Lordships considered delay as
\nserious factor and have not granted relief. Therein it was observed as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” The respondents  furthermore are not
\neven entitled to any relief on the ground of gross
\ndelay  and laches on their part in filing the writ
\npetition. The first two writ petitions were filed in the
\nyear 1976 wherein the respondents herein
\napproached the High Court in 1992. In between 1976
\nand 1992  not only two writ petitions had been
\ndecided, but one way or the other, even the matter
\nhad been considered by this Court in Debdas Kumar.
\nThe plea of delay, which Mr.Krishnamani states,
\nshould be a ground for denying  the relief to the other
\npersons similarly situated would operate against the
\nrespondents. Furthermore,  the other employees not
\nbeing before this Court although they are ventilating
\ntheir grievances before appropriate courts of law, no
\norder should be passed which would prejudice their
\ncause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to
\nmake any observation only for the purpose of grant
\nof some relief to the respondents  to which they are
\nnot legally entitled to so as to deprive others there
\nfrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a
\ncourt of law.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe statement of law has also been summarized in Halsbury’s
\nLaws of England, Para 911 , pg. 395 as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” In determining whether  there has been
\nsuch delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to
\nbe considered are :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(i) \tacquiescence on the claimant’s part;\n<\/p>\n
and\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(ii)\tany change of position that has
\noccurred on the defendant’s part.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAcquiescence in this sense does not mean
\nstanding by while the violation of a right is in
\nprogress, but assent after the violation  has been
\ncompleted and the claimant has become aware of it.
\nIt is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by
\nhis conduct, he has done that which might fairly be
\nregarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by
\nhis conduct and neglect, though not waiving the
\nremedy, he has put the other party in a position in
\nwhich it would not be reasonable to place him if the
\nremedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such
\ncases lapse of time and delay are most material.
\nUpon these considerations rests the doctrine of
\nlaches. ”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the statement of law as summarized above, the
\nrespondents are guilty  since the respondents has acquiesced  in
\naccepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time.  If
\nthey would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ
\npetitions as others did in the matter.  Therefore, whenever it appears
\nthat the claimants  lost time or while away and did not rise to the
\noccasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the
\nCourt should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent.
\nSecondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of
\nacquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other
\nparties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the
\npresent case, if the respondents would have challenged their
\nretirement being violative  of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the
\nNigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to
\nmeet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents
\nhave allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they
\nhave filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will
\ndefinitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have
\nserious financial repercussion on the financial management of the
\nNigam. Why the Court should come to the rescue of such persons
\nwhen they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs against this, our attention was invited to a decision of this
\nCourt in the case of Dayal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a>
\nreported in (2003) 2 SCC 593.  In that case their Lordships observed
\nthat when the High Court exercised discretion and condoned the
\ndelay, it is not proper for the Supreme Court at the SLP stage to set
\naside the High Court’s order on that ground alone and more so,
\nwhere the impugned judgment is legally sustainable. This case does
\nnot provide any assistance to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that at
\nthis belated stage if the relief is given  to the respondents  who have
\nretired and accepted the retirement, that will cause  a huge burden to
\nthe Nigam to the tune of Rs.17,80,43,108\/- and there is no sufficient
\nfunds for incurring such a huge amount at this belated stage. This will
\ncompletely ruin the financial condition of the Nigam if all the persons
\nwho were not vigilant and did not take up their cause before the
\nCourt, it would prove a great set back to the Nigam.  In this regard, a
\nreference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of
\nKrishena Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. reported in (1990) 4
\nSCC 207. In that case  the question was to grant pensionary benefit
\nto the provident fund holders of the railways. A submission was made
\nif the Court feels that a positive direction cannot be given to the
\ngovernment, it was prayed that at least an option should be given to
\nthe respondents either to withdraw  the benefit of switching over to
\npension from everyone or to give it to the petitioners as well, so that
\nthe discrimination must go.  This Court negatived the submission and
\nit was observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” We are not inclined to accept either  of
\nthese submissions. The PF retirees and pension
\nretirees having not belonged to a class, there is no
\ndiscrimination. In the matter of expenditure includible
\nin the Annual Financial Statement, this Court has to
\nbe loath to pass any order or give any direction,
\nbecause of the division of functions between the
\nthree co-equal organs of the government under the
\nConstitution.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,  in case at this belated stage if similar relief is  to be given
\nto the persons who have not approached the Court  that will
\nunnecessarily overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely
\ncollapse with the liability of payment  to these persons in terms of two
\nyears’ salary and increased benefit of pension and other
\nconsequential benefits.   Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any
\nrelief to the persons who have approached the Court after their
\nretirement.  Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when
\nthey were in service or who have obtained interim order for their
\nretirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and
\nnot others. We have been given a chart of those nine persons,  who
\nfiled  writ petitions and  obtained stay  & are continuing in service.
\nThey are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t1.\tShri Bhawani Sewak Shukla\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t2.\tShri Vijay Bahadur Rai\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t3.\tShri Girija Shanker\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t4.\tShri Yogendra Prakash Kulshersht\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t5.\tShri Vinod Kumar Bansal\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t6.\tShri Pradumn Prashad Mishra\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t7.\tShri Banke Bihari Pandey\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t8.\tShri Yashwant Singh\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            9.\tShri Chandra  Shekhar<\/p>\n
\tAnd the following persons filed Writ Petitions before retirement
\nbut no stay order granted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t1. Shri Gopal Singh Dangwal (W\/P No. 35384\/05 vide
\n                                                                  order  dated 5.5.2005)\n<\/p>\n
                  2. Shri R.R. Gautam           (W\/P No. 45495\/05  vide order
\n                                                                dated  15.6.05)<\/p>\n
The benefits shall only be confined to above mentioned
\npersons  who have filed writ petitions before their retirement or they
\nhave obtained interim order before their retirement. The appeals filed
\nagainst these persons by the Nigam shall fail and the same are
\ndismissed. Rest  of  the appeals are allowed and orders passed by
\nthe High Court are set aside.  There  would be no order as to costs.
\n\t\tIt  is submitted that contempt petitions were filed before
\nthe High Court. In view of the order passed in this batch of appeals,
\nthe contempt petitions will not survive and the same are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
28223<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006 Author: A Mathur Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, A.K.Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4790 of 2006 PETITIONER: Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr. RESPONDENT: Jaswant Singh & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/11\/2006 BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & A.K.MATHUR 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-171026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006 - 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\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-25T11:12:14+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-25T11:12:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3144,\"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\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-25T11:12:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006 - 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\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-25T11:12:14+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-25T11:12:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006"},"wordCount":3144,"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\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006","name":"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-25T11:12:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-u-p-jal-nigam-anr-vs-jaswant-singh-anr-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/171026","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=171026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}