{"id":171981,"date":"1973-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973"},"modified":"2018-04-24T23:55:53","modified_gmt":"2018-04-24T18:25:53","slug":"laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973","title":{"rendered":"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 246, \t\t 1974 SCR (2) 255<\/div>\n
Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLALJEE DUBEY AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/11\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  246\t\t  1974 SCR  (2) 255\n 1974 SCC  (1) 188\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1980 SC1185\t (1,5)\n R\t    1987 SC 424\t (22)\n R\t    1987 SC1676\t (27)\n D\t    1990 SC1607\t (17)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India, Arts. 14 and 16-Discrimination in the\nmatter\tof conferment of benefit through  an  administrative\norder-Letter   of   President  dated   November\t  17,\t1953\nclassifying checkers post in Government Harness and Saddlery\nFactory, Kanpur as posts of lower division clerks-Appellants\ndenied\tthe  designation as clerks  while  others  similarly\nsituate were given the benefit Held discriminatory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants were employed as checkers in the  Government\nHarness\t and  Saddlery Factory, Kanpur.\t Their\tduties\twere\nsubstantially\tclerical.   The\t question   of\t designating\ncheckers substantially during clerical work was referred  by\nthe   Government  to  a\t committee  known   as\t \"Kalyanwala\nCommittee\".   The  committee recommended  that\tthe  persons\ndoing  clerical work should be designated as lower  division\nclerks.\t The recommendation was accepted by the President of\nIndia  by his letter dated November 17, 1953.  The  Director\nGeneral\t was directed to re-classify checkers as  L.D.Cs  if\nthey  were matriculates or completed three years  continuous\nservice\t as  checkers.\t The appellants\t claimed  that\tthey\nsatisfied the above test and yet they were not classified as\nlower  division clerks.\t The appellants filed a\t civil\tsuit\nfor a declaration that they were entitled. to be  classified\nand  redesignated as lower division clerks,  founding  their\nclaim  on  the President's letter dated November  17,  1953.\nThe grievance of the appellants was that other employees who\ndid not possess the necessary qualifications were designated\nas  L.D.Cs.  The  trial Court on  evidence  found  that\t the\nappellants  were performing duties which were  substantially\nof  a clerical nature and therefore granted the\t declaration\nin favour of the appellants.  The District Court, on  appeal\nby  the\t State, held that the Court had no  jurisdiction  to\ngrant relief since the President's letter was in the  nature\nof  departmental  rules.  On appeal by the  appellants,\t the\nHigh  Court held that the letter of the President  of  India\ndid not constitute a rule under Art. 309 of the Constitution\nbut  was  merely  in  the nature  of  an  administrative  or\nexecutive  order.   Before this Court, the  appellants\tcon-\ntended\tthat the letter dated November 17, 1953,  should  be\nimplemented    because\t the   Government    accepted\t the\nrecommendations\t of  the Kalyanwala  Committee.\t  The  other\ncheckers   performing  duties  similar\tto  those   of\t the\nappellants  having  been granted the benefit  of  the  order\ncontained  in  the President's letter, denial  of  the\tsame\nbenefit\t to the appellants who were similarly situate  would\nbe violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.\n14 and 16.\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD  : (i) The letter of the President of India dated\t17th\nNovember, 1953 gave a sanction to the recommendations of the\nKalyanwala   Committee.\t  The  authorities   admitted\tsome\ncheckers  as lower division clerks and left others to  their\nown  posts.   The direction containing the sanction  of\t the\nPresident indicates that the checkers who had the  requisite\nqualifications, viz., passing matriculation examination\t or,\nin  the\t alternative three years continuous service  in\t the\ndepartment,  were  to-\tbe  put in  the\t category  of  lower\ndivision clerks.  In the case of checkers who had  requisite\nqualifications\tthe authorities concerned had no  option  to\nmake any selection among such persons for the conferment  of\nthe   benefit.\t The  appellants  possessed   the   required\nqualifications\tand  were performing the duties\t which\twere\nsubstantially clerical.\t The appellants are thus entitled to\nbe  designated as lower division clerks in  accordance\twith\nthe  directions\t contained in the letter  of  the  President\ndated\tNovember  17,  1953.   There  has   been   arbitrary\ndiscrimination against the appellants.\nIn  the case of checkers. who did not possess the  requisite\nqualifications,\t the  authorities  had\tthe  discretion\t  in\nmatters\t of  classification of checkers\t as  lower  division\nclerks.\t  [253F-G]\n250\n(ii)Held  further that it was not necessary to\texpress\t any\nopinion as to whether the President's letter dated  November\n17,  1953 became a rule under Art. 309 of the  Constitution.\n[254C]\nPurushottam  Lal and others v. Union of India  and  another,\n[1973] 1 S.C.C. 651, followed.\nUnion of India v. K. P. Joseph and others<\/a>, A.I.R. 1973\tS.C.\n303, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1987  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby Special Leave from the judgment and\tOrder  dated
\nthe  29th  September, 1965 of the Allahabad  High  Court  in
\nSecond Appeal No. 2517 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
R.   K.\t Garg,\tS. C. Agrawala and V. J.  Francis,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
S.   N. Prasad and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRAY,  C.J.  This  is an appeal by  special  leave  from\t the
\njudgment  dated\t 29 September, 1965 of\tthe  Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
The  question in this appeal is-whether the  appellants\t who
\nare plaintiffs in the suit are entitled to be classified and
\nre-designated as lower division clerks.
\nThe  appellants were employed in the Government Harness\t and
\nSaddlery Factory, Kanpur.  They were designated as checkers.
\nTheir  duties  were substantially clerical.  They  made\t was
\nresentations  to  the authorities for  being  classified  as
\nclerks.\t  The  matter  was referred to\ta  Committee  called
\n‘Kalyanwala  Committee’.   The\tCommittee  recommended\tthat
\npersons\t doing clerical work should be designated  as  lower
\ndivision  clerks.   The recommendation was accepted  by\t the
\nPresident  of India.  The Director General was\tdirected  to
\nre-classify  checkers as lower division clerks if they\twere
\nmatriculates  or completed three years’ continuous  service.
\nThe appellants claimed that they satisfied the tests and yet
\nthey  were  not classified as lower  division  clerks.\t The
\ngrievance of the appellants was that other employees who did
\nnot possess the necessary qualifications were designated  as
\nlower\tdivision  clerks.-  The\t appellants  asked   for   a
\ndeclaration  that  they were entitled to be  classified\t and
\nredesignated  as  lower\t division  clerks.   The  appellants
\nfounded their claim on the letter dated 17 November, 1953.
\nThe  respondents contended that the duties performed by\t the
\nappellants   were  not\tsubstantially  clerical\t and   other
\nemployees who were sufficiently qualified were designated as
\nlower division clerks.\n<\/p>\n
The  trial  Court  referred to\tthe  oral  evidence.   Three
\nwitnesses on behalf of the appellants narrated their  career
\nin the service of Harness and Saddlery Factory and described
\nthe duties performed by them.  The trial Court also referred
\nto the evidence on behalf of the respondents.  The principal
\nissue  before  the, trial Court was whether  the  appellants
\nwere  entitled\tto  be classified and  designated  as  lower
\ndivision  clerks  on  the basis\t of  the  recommendation  of
\nKalyanwala  Committee and the sanction of the  President  of
\nIndia thereon.\tOn
\n251<\/span>
\nthis  issue  the  trial Court referred to  the\tevidence  on
\nbehalf\tof  the parties and found that the  evidence  showed
\nbeyond any doubt that the appellants performed duties  which
\nare  of\t a substantially clerical  nature.The  trial  Court,
\ntherefore, answered the issue in favour of the appellants.
\nOn  appeal  the\t District  Judge found\tin  favour,  of\t the
\nappellants  that  the  duties performed by them\t were  of  a
\nsubstantially clerical nature.\tThe District Judge, however,
\nheld  that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief  to
\nthe   appellants  even\tif  departmental  rules\t have\tbeen
\ndisregarded by the executive authorities.
\nThe  High Court on second appeal found that the\t finding  of
\nthe  trial  Court as well as of the appellate Court  was  in
\nfavour\tof  the appellants that they performed duties  of  a
\nsubstantially clerical nature.\tThe learned single Judge  of
\nthe  High Court on second appeal referred the matter to\t the
\nlearned Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench on the
\nquestion  as to whether the order of the President of  India
\ncreated a right in favour of the appellants.
\nThe  matter was thereafter heard by a Division Bench of\t the
\nHigh Court.  The question for consideration before the\tHigh
\nCourt  was  whether  the  letter  dated\t 17  November,\t1953
\nconferred  any\tright  on the  appellants.   The  appellants
\ncontended  that the letter constituted a rule framed by\t the
\nPresident  of India under Article 309 of  the  Constitution.
\nThe respondents on the other hand contended that the ,letter
\nwas a mere order of an administrative nature.
\nThe  letter  dated 17 November, 1953 was  addressed  by\t the
\nUnder  Secretary  to the Government of\tIndia,\tMinistry  of
\nDefence\t to the Director General, Ordnance  Factories.\t The
\nletter\treferred to the recommendationis of a  committee  of
\nEnquiry\t called the ‘Kalyanwala Committee’ and conveyed\t the
\nsanction of the President as follows
\n\t      “The existing posts of Checkers, Grades 1 & 11
\n\t      in Ordnance Factories, the duties of which are
\n\t      substantially clerical, shall be classified by
\n\t      you  in consultation with the D.F.A. (FYS)  as
\n\t      posts   of   Lower   Division   Clerks.\t The
\n\t      incumbents of the posts so classified will  be
\n\t      redesignated as lower division clerks provided
\n\t      they  are at least matriculates, or,  if\tnon-
\n\t      matriculates,  they  have completed  3  years’
\n\t      continuous  service  as Checkers on  the\tdate
\n\t      from  which these orders take effect  or\tfrom
\n\t\t\t    the\t date  of reorganisation  of  the
\n existing
\n\t      cadre of Checkers whichever is later.  Such of
\n\t      the  incumbents  of these posts  as  are\tnon-\n<\/p>\n
\t      matriculates  and have not completed 3  years’
\n\t      continuous service as Checkers on the date  of
\n\t      effect  of  this\tletter,\t provided  they\t are
\n\t      considered  suitable in all respects  for\t the
\n\t      work,  will  also\t be  redesignated  as  Lower
\n\t      Division\t Clerks;  they\twill,  however,\t  be
\n\t      reverted\tas  checkers as and  when  vacancies
\n\t      occur,  in future in that grade and will\tthen
\n\t      be  replaced  in the grade of  Lower  Division
\n\t      Clerks by qualified individuals.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  remaining  posts  will  continue  to\t  be
\n\t      designated  as Checkers but there will  be  no
\n\t      grades.  Incumbents of these
\n\t      252<\/span>
\n\t      posts  will be brought on to the single  scale
\n\t      of  Rs. 45-2-553-85 in place of  the  existing
\n\t      two scales of Rs. 40-1-50-2-60 and Rs. 55-3-85
\n\t      on  the date of from which these\torders\ttake
\n\t      effect  or the date of reorganisation  of\t the
\n\t      cadre of Checkers; whichever is later”.\n<\/p>\n
The  letter dated 17 November, 1953 consisted of  directions
\nof  two\t different  nature.  First,  there  were  directions
\nlaying down how certain Checkers were to be reclassified as
\nlower division Clerks.\tSecond, directions given related  to
\nthe  abolition\tof the two grades of Checkers  who  remained
\nafter excluding those persons who were redesignated as Lower
\nDivision  Clerks.   There was a further\t direction  that  in
\nfuture\tthere  would  be  only\tone  single  grade  for\t the
\nCheckers.   That grade would be Rs. 45-2-55-3-85 instead  of
\nthe two preexisting scales of Rs. 40-1-50-2-60 and Rs. 55-3-\n<\/p>\n
85.
\nThe High Court on second appeal was divided in opinion.\t One
\nof the learned Judges held that the letter contained  orders
\nand in structure governing certain individuals only who were
\nin  service  towards  the  end of  the\tyear  1953  and\t the
\nunderlying  idea was to reclassify them as Checkers.   There
\nwas  no idea to fix conditions of service of  Checkers for
\nall  time.   The  letter did not  constitute  a\t rule  under
\nArticle\t 309  of the Constitution.  The letter was  an\tmere
\ndirection  of an administrative nature.\t The  other  learned
\nJudge held that the letter laid down conditions of  service.
\nConditions  of\tservice\t could only  be\t prescribed  by\t the
\nPresident  by Rules under Article 309.\tThe letter  amounted
\nto a rule framed by the President of India.
\nIn  view  of the division the question was referred  to\t the
\nthird  learned\tJudge  as to whether  the  letter  dated  17
\nNovember,  1953 constituted a rule framed by  the  President
\nunder  Article 309.  The third learned Judge held  that\t the
\nletter\twas  of\t a  composite nature.\tThere  were  ad\t hoc
\ndirections in respect of certain checkers.  The letter\talso
\nlaid  down some conditions of service which would  apply  to
\nthe  remaining\tcheckers.  The letter did not  constitute  a
\nrule  framed  by the President of India under  Article\t309.
\nThe letter merely contained an order of an administrative or
\nexecutive  nature.   This view of the  third  learned  Judge
\nbecome the majority view of the High Court.
\nCounsel\t on  behalf  of the appellants\tcontended  that\t the
\nletter dated 17 November, 1953 should be implemented because
\nthe  Government\t accepted the recommendation  of  Kalyanwala
\nCommittee.   Counsel  for  the\tappellants  submitted  these
\nreasons.   Denial  of  the  benefits of\t the  order  to\t the
\nappellants  is\tviolative of fundamental  rights  guaranteed
\nunder  Articles\t 14  and  16  of  the  Constitution.   Other
\ncheckers   performing  duties  similar\tto  those   of\t the
\nappellants  have  been\tgranted the  benefit  of  the  order
\ncontained in the letter dated 17 November, 1953 whereas\t the
\nappellants  who are similarly situate have been\t arbitrarily
\ndenied the benefit of the same.\n<\/p>\n
In  the recent decision in Purshotam Lal & Ors. v. Union  of
\nIndia  & Anr. [1973] 1 S.C.C. 651 this Court held  that\t the
\nGovernment was bound to implement the recommendations of the
\nSecond Pay
\n25 3
\nCommission  and\t if  the Government did\t not  implement\t the
\nreport regarding some employees only there would be a breach
\nof  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.   In  Purshottam
\nLal case (supra) the Government of India set up a Commission
\ncalled\t the  “Second  Pay  Commission”\t to   enquire\tinto
\nemoluments  and conditions of service of Central  Government
\nemployees.   Purshottam Lal and others were employed in\t the
\nForest Research Institute and College, Dehra Dun.  They were
\nResearch  Assistants.  Their contention was that their\tcase
\nwas covered by the recommendations of the Commission.  On  2
\nAugust,\t 1960  the Government issued a\tnotification  giving
\neffect to the recommendations of the Pay Commission.  On  21
\nJune,  1962 the Government of India revised the pay  scales
\nof the petitioners and stated that therevision of the  pay
\nscales of the petitioners would take effect fromthe   date
\nof  the issue of the order.  The petitioners contended\tthat
\nthe  revised pay scales of similar posts in  similar  sister
\ninstitutes of the Research Institute under the same Ministry
\nhad  been  implemented from 1 July, 1959  according  to\t the
\nSecond\tPay Commission recommendations, and, therefore,\t the
\npetitioners   were   entitled\tto  the\t  benefit   of\t the
\nretrospective  date,  viz., 1 July,  1959.   The  Government
\ncontended  that\t it  was for the Government  to\t accept\t the
\nrecommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so  to
\ndetermine  what categories of employees should be  taken  to
\nhave  been included in the terms of reference.\t This  Court
\ndid  not  accept  the contention  of  the  Government.\t The
\nGovernment  made  reference  in respect\t of  all  Government
\nemployees.   The  Government accepted  the  recommendations.
\nTherefore,  the\t Government  was  bound\t to  implement\t the
\nrecommendations in respect of all Government employees.\t The
\nreason\tgiven by this Court was that if the  Government\t did
\nnot implement the Report regarding some employees only there
\nwould\tbe  a.\tbreach\tof  Articles  14  and  16   of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case the letter dated 17 November, 1953 shows
\nthat   the   President\tof  India  gave\t sanction   to\t the
\nrecommendations\t of Kalyanwala Committee.   The\t authorities
\nadmitted  some of the persons as lower division\t clerks\t and
\nleft  others to their own posts.  The  direction  containing
\nthe  sanction of the President indicates that  checkers\t who
\nhad   the  requisite  qualifications,  viz.,   passing\t the
\nmatriculation  examination  or\tin  the\t alter-native  three
\nyears’\tcontinuous service in the department were to be\t put
\nin the category of lower divisions clerks.  The letter dated
\n17  November,  1953 divided checkers into two  groups.\t The
\nfirst\tgroup  consisted  of  checkers\twho  possessed\t the
\nnecessary qualifications as  laid down in that\torder.\t The
\nsecond\tgroup  consisted of those who did not  possess\tthat
\nqualification.\t In the case of persons of the\tfirst  group
\nthe authorities concerned could not have any option to\tmake
\nany  selection\tamong such persons.  The direction  in\tthat
\nletter\tindicates that such persons should be classified  as
\nlower  division\t clerks.  In the case of the  second  group,
\nviz.,\tthose\twho  did  not  fulfill\t the   qualification
\nrequirements it was left open to the authorities to exercise
\ntheir  discretion and classify some of the checkers  in\t the
\nposts of lower division clerks if they considered them to be
\nfit  and suitable to serve in those posts.   The  appellants
\nwere, therefore, entitled to be designated as lower division
\nclerks, in accordance with the directions contained in
\n254<\/span>
\nthe letter dated 17 November 1953.  There has been arbitrary
\ndiscrimination against the appellants.
\nIn  another decision in Union of India v. K. P.\t Joseph\t and
\nOrs.<\/a> not yet reported in Supreme Court Reports but  reported
\nin  A. 1. R. 1973 S. C. 303 this Court considered Whether  a
\ngeneral\t order described as Office Memorandum providing\t for
\ncertain\t benefits to ex-military personnel on  re-employment
\non  the\t basis of their length of  actual  military  service
\nconferred any right relating to conditions of service.\tThis
\nCourt  held  that the persons mentioned in  the\t order\twere
\nentitled to have their pay fixed in the manner specified  in
\nthe order and that was part of the conditions of service.
\nIt is not necessary to express any opinion as to whether the
\nletter\tdated 17 November, 1953 became a rule under  Article
\n309 of the Constitution.  For the purposes of the appeal  it
\nis  sufficient to hold that the letter has been accepted  by
\nthe  authorities and given effect to in the case of some  of
\nthe employees belonging to the same group as the appellants.
\nFor  these reasons, the appellants are entitled to  succeed.
\nThe  appeal is accepted.  The judgment of the High Court  is
\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n
The parties will pay and bear their own costs in view of the
\nfact  that  they  did so throughout  tinder  the  orders  of
\nCourt.,
\nS.B.W.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
2 5 5<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 246, 1974 SCR (2) 255 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: LALJEE DUBEY AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/11\/1973 BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: […]<\/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-171981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLaljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973 - 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\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-24T18:25:53+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-24T18:25:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973\"},\"wordCount\":2177,\"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\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973\",\"name\":\"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-24T18:25:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973 - 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\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-24T18:25:53+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973","datePublished":"1973-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-24T18:25:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973"},"wordCount":2177,"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\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973","name":"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-24T18:25:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laljee-dubey-and-others-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-13-november-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laljee Dubey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1973"}]},{"@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\/171981","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=171981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}