{"id":17624,"date":"2005-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005"},"modified":"2015-11-27T19:25:34","modified_gmt":"2015-11-27T13:55:34","slug":"union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative &#8230; on 9 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative &#8230; on 9 August, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 09\/08\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM         \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM          \n\nW.P.No.6080 of 2001  \n\n\n1. Union of India rep. by the\n   Chief Secretary, Government\n   of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.\n\n2. The Secretary to Government (Education)\n   Government of Pondicherry\n   Pondicherry.\n\n3. The Director\n   Education Department \n   Government of Pondicherry\n   Pondicherry.\n\n4. The Principal\n   Bharathidasan Govt. College\n   for Women, Pondicherry.                      .. Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Central Administrative Tribunal\n   Madras Bench rep. by its Registrar\n   Chennai.\n\n2. M. Jaisankar                                 .. Respondents\n\n                Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for an issuance of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioners :  Mr.  Syed Mustafa\n                for Mr.  T.  Murugesan\n                Govt., Pleader (Pondy)\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.  K.  Chandru, Sr.  Counsel\n                for Mr.  D.  Saravanan\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)      <\/p>\n<p>                Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,<br \/>\nMadras Bench dated  08.02.2001  made  in  O.A.P.No.18\/99,  the  Government  of<br \/>\nPondicherry (Education Department) has filed the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Heard   Mr.     Syed  Mustafa,  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioners and Mr.  K.   Chandru,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   For  convenience,  the  parties  are  referred as arrayed<br \/>\nbefore the Tribunal.  The applicant, Jaisankar was appointed as Lower Division<br \/>\nClerk (LDC)  in  Bharathidasan  Government  College  for  Women,  Pondicherry,<br \/>\ntemporarily  on  28.12.1989 and he was placed on probation for a period of two<br \/>\nyears with effect from 30.12.1989.  It is further seen that on 28.09.1991,  he<br \/>\navailed  leave  for  12  days, during the said period, he was transferred from<br \/>\nBharathidasan Government College for Women,  Pondicherry  to  the  Electricity<br \/>\nDepartment, Pondicherry.    On  10.10.199  1,  he was relieved from duty, with<br \/>\ninstruction to report for duty  before  Superintending  Engineer,  Electricity<br \/>\nDepartment, Pondicherry.    When he made a representation on 2.12.1996 seeking<br \/>\npermission to rejoin duty, the relieving order dated 10.10.1991 was  cancelled<br \/>\nand the  applicant rejoined duty.  Thereafter, he was placed under suspension.<br \/>\nThe Principal, Bharathidasan Government College for Women, issued a memorandum<br \/>\nproposing to hold enquiry on the charge of misconduct and misbehaviour.    The<br \/>\napplicant  through  his  representation admitted the charges and explained the<br \/>\nreasons for his absence.  He was asked to submit explanation, why  penalty  of<br \/>\nbreak in  service  should not be awarded.  Taking into account the explanation<br \/>\nof the applicant, the Principal of Bharathidasan Government College for Women,<br \/>\nimposed a punishment of &#8220;dies non&#8221; for the period of unauthorised absence  and<br \/>\nthe  punishment  of  &#8216;not  spent  on  duty&#8217;  for  the  period  of  suspension.<br \/>\nThereafter, an order revoking the suspension was issued on 14.11.1997.    When<br \/>\nhe  reported  for  duty on 14.11.1997, there was no vacancy in the College and<br \/>\nthe stalemate continued.  Since his representation was not considered and even<br \/>\nhis request for creation of supernumerary post was not accepted, he approached<br \/>\nthe Tribunal for necessary direction.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  It is the case  of  the  Pondicherry  Administration  that<br \/>\nsince there was no vacancy in the grade of LDC to accommodate the applicant in<br \/>\nthe Institution, the applicant was not given posting.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   The  Tribunal,  after  finding  that  once  the  order of<br \/>\nsuspension is revoked, the applicant is entitled to have a  posting,  directed<br \/>\nthe  Department to give posting immediately or at least create a supernumerary<br \/>\npost to accommodate the applicant and also directed for payment of salary  and<br \/>\nallowances with effect from 14.11.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   The  learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners \/<br \/>\nPondicherry Administration would submit that the punishment, viz., &#8220;dies  non&#8221;<br \/>\nto  the  applicant  is not in consonance with the Rules and accordingly, steps<br \/>\nhave been taken for imposition of higher penalty.  He further  contended  that<br \/>\nthe  Tribunal  committed an error in giving direction that all benefits should<br \/>\nbe given on the basis that once suspension  was  revoked,  the  applicant  was<br \/>\nentitled to the posting with due salary.  According to him, where there was no<br \/>\nwork at all performed by the applicant, there could be no pay for him.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   We  are  unable  to  accept the above contentions for the<br \/>\nsimple reason that based on punishment of &#8220;dies  non&#8221;  to  the  applicant,  as<br \/>\nrightly  observed by the Tribunal and argued by the learned senior counsel for<br \/>\nthe second respondent, the Department ought  to  have  given  posting  to  the<br \/>\napplicant.   Further,  it  is also not in dispute that his suspension was also<br \/>\nrevoked.   Inasmuch  as  the  Administration  has   not   responded   to   his<br \/>\nrepresentation,  the  applicant  has  rightly  approached  the Tribunal, which<br \/>\ngranted relief, and we do not find any error or infirmity for interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  For the above said  reasons  there  is  no  difficulty  in<br \/>\ndismissing   the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  Pondicherry  Administration.<br \/>\nHowever, Mr.  K.  Chandru, learned senior counsel  appearing  for  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  has  brought  to  our  notice that after the impugned order of the<br \/>\nTribunal dated 08.02.2001 in O.A.P.No.18 of 1999 was passed,  without  setting<br \/>\naside  the  same  by the appropriate forum\/Court, the Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nEducation Department, Gover nment of  Pondicherry  has  issued  a  show  cause<br \/>\nnotice on 16.04.2001, directing the applicant to show cause within 5 days from<br \/>\nthe  date  of receipt of the said notice, as to why the order dated 09.05.1997<br \/>\nof the Principal,  Bharathidasan  Government  College  of  Women,  Pondicherry<br \/>\nshould not  be  revised  and appropriate further orders passed.  It is further<br \/>\nbrought to our notice that pursuant to the said notice, the applicant  offered<br \/>\nhis explanation  on  23.04.2001.   By order dated 24.04.2001, the Secretary to<br \/>\nGovernment, Education Department, by exercising revisional  power,  set  aside<br \/>\nthe  order  of  the  Principal,  Bharathidasan  Government  College for Women,<br \/>\nPondicherry, dated 14.11.1997, awarding penalty of &#8220;dies non&#8221; to the applicant<br \/>\nand dismissed him from service.  It is also brought to our notice that against<br \/>\nthe said order of dismissal, the applicant  \/  second  respondent  herein  has<br \/>\nfiled  Original  Application No.722 of 200 1 before the Central Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal, Madras Bench and the same is pending.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  In this regard, learned  senior  counsel  for  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent submitted that after the order of the Tribunal in OAP.No.18 of 1999<br \/>\ndated   08.02.2001,  the  State  Government,  here,  the  Union  Territory  of<br \/>\nPondicherry has no power to interfere and meddle with the said  order  without<br \/>\nproperly setting  aside  the  same  by  this court.  In other words, the State<br \/>\nGovernment \/ Union Territory cannot vary or modify the  judicial  decision  of<br \/>\nthe Administrative Tribunal.  He brought to our notice that the Constitutional<br \/>\namendment  (32nd amendment) Act 1973, giving power to the State Government for<br \/>\nmodification or annulling order of the Administrative Tribunal has  been  held<br \/>\nby the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  In the case of P.Sambamurthy vs.  State of A.P.  reported<br \/>\nin  AIR  1987  SC  663, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has held that the proviso to<br \/>\nArticle 371-D (5) conferring power on State Government to modify or annul  the<br \/>\norder of Administrative Tribunal is unconstitutional and void.  In the case of<br \/>\nN.J.  Prabhakar vs.    State of A.P.  reported in AIR 19 88 SC 334, it is held<br \/>\nthat the annulment of the order of Tribunal reinstating employee by the  State<br \/>\nGovernment under  Article  371-D(5)  of the Constitution is a nullity.  In the<br \/>\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/301795\/\">Union of India vs.  K.M.  Shankarappa<\/a> reported in  2001  (1)  MLJ  146<br \/>\n(SC), the following conclusion of their Lordships is relevant:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;7.  We  are  unable  to  accept  the  submission of the learned counsel.  The<br \/>\nGovernment has chosen to establish a quasi-judicial body which has been  given<br \/>\nthe powers,  inter alia, to decide the effect of the film on the public.  Once<br \/>\na quasi-judicial body like the Appellate Tribunal,  consisting  of  a  retired<br \/>\nJudge  of a High Court or a person qualified to be a Judge of a High Court and<br \/>\nother experts in the filed, gives its decision that decision  would  be  final<br \/>\nand binding  so  far  as  the  Executive and the Government are concerned.  To<br \/>\npermit the Execute to review and \/ or revise that  decision  would  amount  to<br \/>\ninterference  with  the  exercise  of  judicial  functions by a quasi-judicial<br \/>\nBoard.  It would amount to subjecting the decision of a quasi-judicial body to<br \/>\nthe scrutiny of the  Executive.    Under  our  Constitution  the  position  is<br \/>\nreverse.  The  Executive  has  to obey judicial orders.  Thus, Sec.6(1) of the<br \/>\nCinematograph Act is a traversity of the rule of law which is one of the basic<br \/>\nstructures of the Constitution.    The  Legislature  may,  in  certain  cases,<br \/>\noverrule  or  nullify  the  judicial  or  executive  decision  by  enacting an<br \/>\nappropriate legislation.      However,   without   enacting   an   appropriate<br \/>\nlegislation,  the Executive or the Legislature cannot set at naught a judicial<br \/>\norder.  The Executive cannot sit in an appeal or review or revise  a  judicial<br \/>\norder.    The   Appellate  Tribunal  consisting  of  experts  decides  matters<br \/>\nquasi-judicially.  A Secretary and\/  or  Minister  cannot  sit  in  appeal  or<br \/>\nrevision over  those  decisions.   At the highest, the Government may apply to<br \/>\nthe Tribunal itself for a review,  if  circumstances  so  warrant.    But  the<br \/>\nGovernment would be bound by the ultimate decision of the Tribunal.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   The  above  decisions  make it clear that the executives<br \/>\nhave no power to review or revise the decision of the Administrative Tribunal.<br \/>\nIn our case, as rightly pointed out by  Mr.    K.    Chandru,  learned  senior<br \/>\ncounsel,  after  the  order  of the Tribunal dated 08.02.2001, giving positive<br \/>\ndirection for the posting  of  the  applicant,  the  Secretary  to  Government<br \/>\n(Education  Department)  has  issued  a  show  cause  notice on 16.04.2004 and<br \/>\nfinally the applicant was dismissed from service on 24 .04.2001.   Though  the<br \/>\nsaid order is the subject matter of O.A.  pending before the Tribunal, we hold<br \/>\nthat  the  approach  and the steps taken by the Education Department cannot be<br \/>\nappreciated.  Their decision is contrary to law, particularly  with  reference<br \/>\nthe above referred to decisions of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In  the  light  of  our  discussion, while dismissing the writ<br \/>\npetition filed by  the  Pondidcharry  Administration,  they  are  directed  to<br \/>\nimplement  the  order  of  the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order.  Though we are not  appreciating  the<br \/>\nconduct  of  the applicant \/ second respondent herein, in view of the order of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal granting relief, inasmuch as  the  Education  Department  without<br \/>\nwaiting  for  an  order  from  the  appropriate  forum,  namely,  this  Court,<br \/>\nintervened and passed  an  order  of  dismissal  ignoring  the  order  of  the<br \/>\nTribunal,  we  are  constrained  to  award  costs  of Rs.3,000\/- (Rupees three<br \/>\nthousand only) payable to the second respondent herein within the same  period<br \/>\nas directed above.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>kh<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Central Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nMadras Bench rep.  by its Registrar<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative &#8230; on 9 August, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09\/08\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM and THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM W.P.No.6080 of 2001 1. Union of India rep. by the Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. 2. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative ... on 9 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative ... on 9 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-27T13:55:34+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative &#8230; on 9 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-27T13:55:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1598,\"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\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005\",\"name\":\"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative ... on 9 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-27T13:55:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative &#8230; on 9 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative ... on 9 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative ... on 9 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-27T13:55:34+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative &#8230; on 9 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-27T13:55:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005"},"wordCount":1598,"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\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005","name":"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative ... on 9 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-27T13:55:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-rep-by-the-vs-the-central-administrative-on-9-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India Rep. By The vs The Central Administrative &#8230; on 9 August, 2005"}]},{"@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\/17624","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=17624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}