{"id":173405,"date":"2004-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004"},"modified":"2018-11-05T20:05:50","modified_gmt":"2018-11-05T14:35:50","slug":"k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004","title":{"rendered":"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 30\/07\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.19701 OF 1998\nand\nW.M.P.NO.29860 OF 1998\n\nK. Ramalingam                  ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Union of India,\n   rep. by its Secretary,\n   Ministry of Personnel,\n   Public Grievances and Pension,\n   New Delhi.\n\n2. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Chief Secretary,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai 9.\n\n3. The Registrar,\n   Central Administrative Tribunal,\n   Madras Bench, Chennai 104.           ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.R.  Gandhi\n                   Senior Counsel for\n                   Mr.R.G.  Narendhiran\n\nFor Respondent-1:  Mr.V.T.  Gopalan\n                   Addl.  Solicitor General for\n                   Mr.R.  Santhanam\n\nRespondent-2    :  Mr.D.  Krishnakumar\n                   Special Govt.  Pleader\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
P.K.  MISRA, J<\/p>\n
        In  this  writ  petition,  the  petitioner has prayed for quashing the
\norder dated 1.12.1998 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.235  of
\n1998 and the order of the first respondent in Memorandum No.14 01\/10\/97-AIS(I)
\ndated  19.1.98  and  to  restore  the seniority of the petitioner as per order
\nNo.14014\/45\/94-AIS(I) dated 29.9.94.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as  follows
\n:-      The  petitioner was appointed as Class I Officer in the Commercial Tax
\nDepartment of the State of Tamil Nadu after being selected by the  Tamil  Nadu
\nPublic  Service  Commission and in course of time he was promoted to different
\nposts and ultimately he was promoted as Joint  Commissioner.    In  1994,  the
\npetitioner  was  recruited  to  Indian  Administrative  Service  by process of<\/p>\n
selection  as  envisaged  under  Rule  4(1  )(c)  read with 8(2) of the Indian
\nAdministrative Service ( Recruitment)  Rules,  1954,  hereinafter  called  the
\nRecruitment Rules.  On 29.9.199 4, the Government of India taking into account
\nthe  length  of  past service of the petitioner rendered in his former service
\nunder the State Government, fixed the year of allotment as 1986  by  giving  8
\nyears weightage.    This was apparently done in accordance with Rule 3(3)(iii)
\nof the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987  as
\namended in  1989, (hereinafter referred to as the Seniority Rules).  In course
\nof time, the petitioner was promoted to Junior  Administrative  Grade  in  the
\npost  of  Junior  Secretary  and the petitioner was expecting that he would be
\npromoted to Senior Grade.\n<\/p>\n
        While  the  matter  stood thus, the Central Government issued a notice
\ndated 18.6.1997 to the petitioner wherein it was indicated that one Shri  T.R.
\nGopalan  was placed at S.No.1 in the Select List and the petitioner was placed
\nat S.No.2 and since Shri T.R.  Gopalan had been assigned 1989 as his  year  of
\nallotment,  the  petitioner  could  not have been assigned 1986 as the year of
\nallotment, and therefore, the year of allotment was required to be revised and
\naccordingly the petitioner was asked to submit his representation, if any,  in
\nwriting.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   At  that  stage,  the petitioner filed O.A.No.627 of 1997
\nbefore the Central Administrative Tribunal.  The Tribunal observed that  since
\nonly  notice  had been issued, it was open to the petitioner to make necessary
\nrepresentation raising all his contentions and  O.A.,  had  been  filed  at  a
\npre-mature stage.  Accordingly, the O.A.  was disposed of with the observation
\nthat the present petitioner should make a representation.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  Thereafter under the impugned order dated 19.1.1998, which
\nwas communicated by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.239 dated 18.2.1998, the
\npetitioner was informed that his year of allotment had been revised to 1989 by
\nobserving  that  the  petitioner  was entitled to weightage of only 5 years as
\nShri T.R.  Gopalan, who had been selected along with the petitioner at  Serial
\nNo.1,  was  only  entitled to the year of allotment as 1989 and the petitioner
\ncould not  be  treated  as  senior  to  him.    Aggrieved  by  the   aforesaid
\ncommunication  dated 19.1.1998, the petitioner filed O.A.No.235 of 1998 before
\nthe Central Administrative  Tribunal,  which  having  been  dismissed  by  the
\njudgment dated 1.12.19 98, is being impugned in the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   In  the order dated 19.1.1998, it was observed that since
\nthe petitioner had been placed at S.No.2 in the  Select  List  and  Shri  T.R.
\nGopalan  had  been  placed  at  S.No.1  and the year of allotment of Shri T.R.
\nGopalan according to his length of service is 1989, the petitioner  could  not
\nhave  been  placed  above  him,  and  therefore,  fixing  1986  as the year of
\nallotment was incorrect and accordingly it was revised to 1 989.  In the  said
\norder  it was also observed that the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1994
\nSC 612 (UNION OF INDIA, etc., v.  G.K.    SANGAMESHWAR  AND  OTHERS)  was  not
\napplicable  as  the  said  decision  had  been rendered on the basis of Indian
\nAdministrative Service (Regulation  of  Seniority)  Rules,  1987  (hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as  the  Seniority  Rules)  prior  to the amendment of Rules in
\nFebruary, 1989.  Placing reliance  upon  proviso  to  Rule  3(3)(ii)  of  such
\nSeniority  Rules,  which  according  to  the  Government  was  similar to Rule
\n3(3)(iii) as amended in 1989, the year of allotment of  the  petitioner  could
\nnot have  been earlier to that of Shri T.R.  Gopalan, whose ye ar of allotment
\nwas 198 9.  These reasonings given in the impugned order passed by the Central
\nGovernment have been practically  reiterated  by  the  Central  Administrative
\nTribunal while rejecting the Original Application.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   The  main  contention  of the petitioner is to the effect
\nthat the Government of India had correctly given weightage of 8  years  taking
\ninto  account  26  years  of  service  rendered by the petitioner and on wrong
\ninterpretation  of  the  Seniority  Rules,  the  Government   of   India   had
\nsubsequently revised  the  year of allotment as 1989.  It is also contended by
\nthe petitioner that the Central Government did not have any  power  to  review
\nits earlier year to refix the order of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   In  order  to  appreciate  the  contentions raised, it is
\nnecessary to notice the relevant provisions relating to seniority as contained
\nin the Seniority Rules, 1987.  Such Rules have  been  framed  in  exercise  of
\npower conferred  under Section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951.  Rule
\n3 relates to assignment of year of allotment.  As per Rule 3(1), every officer
\nshall be assigned a year  of  allotment  in  accordance  with  the  provisions
\ncontained in  the  Rules.    Rule  3(3), as it originally stood in 1987, is as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
         3(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed  to  the  Service
\nafter the commencement of these rules shall be as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  the  year  of  allotment of a direct recruit officer shall be the
\nyear following the year in which the competitive examination was held:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that if  a  direct  recruit  officer  is  permitted  to  join
\nprobationary training under rule 5(1) of the IAS (Probation) Rules, 1954, with
\ndirect  recruit  officers  of a subsequent year of allotment, then he shall be
\nassigned that subsequent year as the year of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) the year of allotment of a promotee officer shall be the same  as
\nthe year of allotment of the junior-most among the direct recruit officers who
\nofficiated  continuously  in  a senior post from a date earlier to the date of
\nappointment of the promotee officer to the Service.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) The year of allotment of an officer appointed by  selection  may
\nbe  determined  ad  hoc by the Central Government on the recommendation of the
\nState Government concerned and in consultation with the Commission:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that he shall not be allotted a year earlier than the year of
\nallotment of a promotee officer already appointed to  the  Service  and  whose
\nlength  of  service  in  the  State  Civil  Service is more than the length of
\ncontinuous service of the former in connection with the affairs of the State.<\/p>\n
        There was an amendment to Rule 3(3)(iii)  in  1989  to  the  following
\neffect :-\n<\/p>\n
          3(3)  The  year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service
\nafter the commencement of these rules shall be as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) .  .  .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (ii) .  .  .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (iii) The year of allotment of an officer appointed by selection shall
\nbe determined in the following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
        (a) for the first 12 years of gazetted service, he shall  be  given  a
\nweightage of 4 years towards fixation of the year of allotment;\n<\/p>\n
        (b) he shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed
\n3  years  of  service beyond the period of 12 years, referred to in sub-clause\n<\/p>\n
(a), subject to a  maximum  weightage  of  5  years.    In  this  calculation,
\nfractions are to be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
        (c) the weightage mentioned in sub-clause (b) shall be calculated with
\neffect from the year in which the officer is appointed to the service:\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that  he  shall not become senior to another non State Civil Service
\nOfficer already appointed to the service.\n<\/p>\n
        Provided further that he shall not be allotted a year earlier than the
\nyear of allotment assigned to an officer already appointed to the  service  in
\naccordance  with sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, whose length
\nof class I continuous service in the State Civil Service is equal to  or  more
\nthan the length of Class I continuous service of the former in connection with
\nthe affairs of the State.<\/p>\n
        Rule  4  relates to inter-se seniority of the officer who are assigned
\nthe same year of allotment and it is to the following effect :-\n<\/p>\n
         4.  Inter-se seniority of the officer who are assigned the same year
\nof allotment.- The inter-se seniority of the officers appointed to the Service
\nshall be in the following order and in each category  the  inter-se  seniority
\nshall be determined in the following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) .  .  .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (ii) .  .  .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (iii)  officers appointed by selection shall be ranked inter-se in the
\norder in which their names are arranged by the Commission for the  purpose  of
\nappointment to the Service by selection.<\/p>\n
                8.   A perusal of the aforesaid Rules makes it clear that Rule
\n3 relates to assignment of year of allotment of  every  officer  recruited  to
\nIndian Administrative  Service.    Once  an  officer  is  assigned  a  year of
\nallotment, it is obvious that such an officer would be junior  to  an  officer
\nwhose year  of  allotment  is earlier to his year of allotment.  Similarly, he
\nwill be senior to an officer whose year of allotment is later than his year of
\nallotment.  Rule 4 would not at all be attracted for the  purpose  of  finding
\nout  the  seniority  of  the  officers  who  are  assigned  different years of
\nallotment.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  For the purpose  of  assigning  a  year  of  allotment  in
\nrespect  of  a  person recruited by process of selection as contemplated under
\nRule 8(2) of the Recruitment Rules, the provisions contained in Rule 3(3)(iii)
\nof the Seniority Rules would  be  attracted.    The  provisions  contained  in
\nclauses  (a)  and  (b)  of  Rule  3(3)(iii)  lay  down in simple terms how the
\nweightage should be given.  As per clause (a)  of  Rule  3(3)(iii),  a  person
\nrecruited  by  selection  shall be given weightage of 4 years for the first 12
\nyears of gazetted service.  In other words, if a person has completed 10 years
\nof servi ce, weightage as per clause (a) would be 4 years.    Similarly  if  a
\nperson has  completed 6 years of service, weightage would also be 4 years.  As
\nper clause (b) of Rule 3(3)(iii), a person would be given further weightage of
\none year for every completed 3 years of service beyond the period of 12 years.
\nTo illustrate, if a person has completed 14 years  of  service,  he  would  be
\ngiven  4  years  of  weightage  in  accordance  with Rule 3(3)(iii)(a) and (b)
\ntogether.  However, if he has completed 15 years of service, he would be given
\nadditional weightage of one year.  The two provisos included in Rule 3(3)(iii)
\nrelate to two different situations.  The first proviso makes it clear that  by
\nvirtue  of the weightage given as per Clauses (a) and (b) , such persons shall
\nnot become  senior  to  another  non-State  Civil  Service  Officer  already
\nappointed to  the  service.  The expression already appointed to the service
\nwould mean that a person who is already appointed and  not  a  person  who  is
\nsimultaneously appointed.   The second proviso relates to allotment of officer
\nalready appointed in accordance with Rule 8(1) of the Recruitment Rules,  that
\nis  to  say,  where  the  race  is  between  an officer of State Civil Service
\npromoted in accordance with Rule  8(1)  and  an  officer  of  non-State  Civil
\nService  selected  in  accordance  with  Rule  8(2) of the Recruitment Rules.
\nApplicability of the said proviso in the present case does not  arise  as  the
\ncompetition  in the present case is not between a promotee under Rule 8(1) and
\na selectee under Rule 8(2) of the Recruitment Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  In the present case, the first respondent  had  initially
\nassigned  the  year of allotment on the basis of length of service of both the
\npersons who had been included in  the  same  select  list  and  who  had  been
\nappointed by  the  very  same  notification.   It is of course true that other
\nperson was placed higher in the select list which would only mean that he  was
\nconsidered more  meritorious.   However, since notification of appointment was
\nof the same date, it cannot be said that the officer in  S.No.1  was  already
\nappointed to the service at the time when the petitioner was appointed to the
\nservice.   The  impugned  assignment of year of allotment is only on the basis
\nthat the other person who was placed at S.No.1 in the  select  list  had  been
\nassigned  1989  as  the year of allotment and the respondents have applied the
\nfirst proviso.  In our opinion, since both  the  persons  had  been  appointed
\nsimultaneously  by  the  very  same  notification,  the  first proviso to Rule
\n3(3)(iii) had no applicability.  Once this position is accepted, the  year  of
\nallotment  of  the  petitioner  must  be  taken  to  be 1986, as has been done
\ninitially, and to such a case, Rule 4(3) will have no  applicability  as  such
\nRule  4  is  applicable  only  when the officers are assigned the same year of
\nallotment and not different years of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  In the representation filed by the petitioner before  the
\nrespondents,  reference  had  been  made  to the decision of the Supreme Court
\nreported in AIR 1994 SC 612 (cited above).   The  respondents  have  contended
\nthat the said decision is not applicable merely because such decision had been
\nrendered  on  the  basis  of  1954  Seniority Rules which were similar to 1987
\nRules, before such 1987 Seniority Rules were amended.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  On a careful perusal of the said decision, we  find  that
\nfactually  the  person  who  was  placed  at third in the select list had been
\nassigned the year of allotment earlier to the person who had been placed first
\nin the select  list.    The  Supreme  Court  ultimately  upheld  the  year  of
\nallotment.   The contention raised in the said decision by the person, who was
\nfirst in the select list, to the effect that the person in third place in  the
\nselect  list  should  not have been assigned the year of allotment previous to
\nthe year of allotment of the person, who was placed first in the select  list,
\nhad not been accepted.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   It is of course true that the Rules have been amended in
\n1989.  However, the amendment of the Rules in 1989 did not make any difference
\nso far as this aspect is concerned and in our opinion the logic and the  ratio
\nof the Supreme Court decision should have been applied.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   It  is  brought  to  our  notice  that subsequently Rule
\n3(3)(iii) has been amended as per G.S.R.736(E) dated 31.12.1997.  The relevant
\nportion of such amendment, which is specifically made applicable  with  effect
\nfrom 1.1.1998, is to the following effect :-\n<\/p>\n
        In  the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules,
\n1987 (hereinafter referred to as the principal rules), in rule 3, in  sub-rule
\n(3),  for  clauses (ii) and (iii), the following clauses shall be substituted,
\nnamely:-\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) .  .  .\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) the year of allotment of an officer appointed by selection shall
\nbe determined with reference to the year in which the meeting of the Committee
\nto make the selection to prepare the select list, on the basis of which he was
\nappointed to the Service, was held and with regard to the  continuous  service
\nrendered  by  him  in  a  post equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector or a
\nhigher post, upto the 31st day of December of the year immediately before  the
\nyear  in  which the meeting of the Committee to make the selection was held to
\nprepare the select list on the basis of which he was appointed to the service,
\nin the following manner :-\n<\/p>\n
        (a) for the service rendered by him upto twenty one years, he shall be
\ngiven a weightage of one year for every  completed  three  years  of  service,
\nsubject to a minimum of four years;\n<\/p>\n
        (b) he shall also be given a weightage of one year for every completed
\ntwo  years  of  service  beyond the period of twenty one years, referred to in
\nsub-clause (a), subject to a maximum of three years.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation:  For the purpose of  calculation  of  the  weightage  under  this
\nclause, the fractions if any, shall be ignored:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided  that  he  shall  not be assigned a year of allotment earlier
\nthan the year of allotment assigned to an officer senior to him in that select
\nlist or appointed to the service on the basis of an earlier select list:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided further that he shall not be allotted a year earlier than the
\nyear of allotment assigned to an officer already appointed to the  service  in
\naccordance  with sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the recruitment rules, whose length
\nof Class I continuous service in the State Civil Service is equal to  or  more
\nthan the length of Class I continuous service of the former in connection with
\nthe affairs of the State.\n<\/p>\n
        Explanation:- The length of the relevant Class I continuous service in
\neither  case  shall  be with reference to the 31st day of December of the year
\nimmediately before the year in which the meeting  of  the  Committee  to  make
\nselection  was  held  to  prepare  the  select  list  on  the  basis  of which
\nappointments were made in the respective cases.<\/p>\n
The proviso to the effect that he shall not be assigned a year  of  allotment
\nearlier  than  the  year  of allotment assigned to an officer senior to him in
\nthat select list introduced in Rule 3(3)(iii) for the first time with  effect
\nfrom  1.1.1998,  is  not relevant for the present case as the amendment is not
\nretrospective.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable  to  accept  the
\ndecision  of  the Central Administrative Tribunal and the first respondent and
\nwe direct that the year of allotment of the petitioner should be taken  to  be
\n1986.   The  orders  passed  by  the  first  respondent  and  the Tribunal are
\naccordingly quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  Accordingly, the writ petition is  allowed.    No  costs.
\nConsequently, WMP.No.29860 of 1998 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes
\ndpk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Union of India,
\nrep.  by its Secretary,
\nMinistry of Personnel,
\nPublic Grievances and Pension,
\nNew Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The State of Tamil Nadu,
\nrep.  by its Chief Secretary,
\nFort St.  George, Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Registrar,
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal,
\nMadras Bench, Chennai 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/07\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA WRIT PETITION NO.19701 OF 1998 and W.M.P.NO.29860 OF 1998 K. Ramalingam .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004 - 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\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-05T14:35:50+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\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-05T14:35:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2996,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004\",\"name\":\"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-05T14:35:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004 - 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\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-05T14:35:50+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\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004","datePublished":"2004-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-05T14:35:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004"},"wordCount":2996,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004","name":"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-05T14:35:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ramalingam-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-july-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Ramalingam vs The Union Of India on 30 July, 2004"}]},{"@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\/173405","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=173405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173405\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}