{"id":176282,"date":"2000-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000"},"modified":"2015-06-10T16:41:34","modified_gmt":"2015-06-10T11:11:34","slug":"g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: N Nandi<\/div>\n
Bench: N Nandi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
N.G. Nandi, J.<\/p>\n
1.     A Government servant, who sought voluntary retirement in January  1980  challenges Notice No.5110\/DO-(2)-881-952 dated 2.4.1985 seeking to  forfeit  3\/4th amounts of pension of the Petitioner being arbitrary, illegal,  with- out  jurisdiction and unconstitutional. The petitioner also prays  for  the  release  of pay and regular pension as admissible under the Rules;  release  and  payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity; release and payment of  sal- ary, special pay, HRA, CCA and other allowances admissible at a cadre  post  in the senior scale of IAS between 27.6.1978 to 12.1.1980; payment of  full  pay  and allowances admissible on the post of Chairman-cum-Managing  Direc- tor,  DSIDC between 11.4.1977 to 26.6.1978; release and payment of  missing  credits  in GPF Account No.GAU-8762 and the exemplary compensation for  the  alleged continuous harassment caused to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2.   On  17.11.1950  the  petitioner was appointed to  U.P.  Civil  Service  (UPCS) on the basis of competitive examination and posted on probation.  On  7.11.1952 the petitioner was confirmed in UPCS on due date and remained  in  service of the State Government till 12.6.1964. In May 1964 the  petitioner  was  selected for deputation to Government of India (Ministry of  Home  Af- fairs) and appointed to various assignments under Ministry of Home Affairs,  Ministry of Commerce, Department of Food, Central Government, etc.; that on  14.8.1972  the  petitioner was appointed as Managing Director,  DSIDC  (re- spondent No.4) initially in scale equivalent to Selection in Grade of  IAS;  that on 23.10.1972 the petitioner was notified under Companies Act, as  the  Managing Director of DSIDC. In December 1975 the  petitioner was  appointed  Chairman-cum-Managing Director, DSIDC in the scale of Rs.2500-3000  equiva- lent  to Schedule C post; that in April 1975, the petitioner was  decorated  “LAGHU  UDYOG RATNA” by the President of India for outstanding  service  to  the cause of development of Small Industries and Entrerpreneurship  Develop- ment, particularly under Half a Million Jobs Programme; that the petitioner  in March 1973 exercised his option for being permanently absorbed in  DSIDC  and  the  petitioner sent his resignation letter from the  services  of  UP  Government in accordance with the proforma resignation, copy send by the UP  Government.  The same was sent by DSIDC to the State of U.P. The  State  of  U.P. did not recall the petitioner nor did they send any intimation  terminating the deputation and the career of the petitioner remained in a  limbo  inasmuch as the DSIDC had also conveyed to the State Government that  leave  and  pensioner  contribution as also GPF contribution in  respect  of  the  petitioner  was being discontinued with effect from December, 1974 in  view  of  impending absorption of the petitioner in DSIDC. As nothing  transpired  further, he continued to remain in DSIDC as its Chief Executive during  the  entire  period;  that on Sunday, the 10th April, 1977  the  Lt.Governor  of  Delhi  issued a Notification stating that the petitioner had  proceeded  on  leave  w.e.f. 11.4.97. This was done by the Lt.Governor under the  instruc- tions  of the Home Ministry without taking in confidence or even  informing  the  State Government of U.P. in this behalf. In the mean time,  the  peti- tioner  was  due for being placed in the select list  of  State  Government  Officers  for Promotion to IAS in accordance with the IAS  (Appointment  by  Promotion)  Regulations, 1955; that the petitioner’s name had already  been  included in the list of December 1976\/1977; that the name of the petitioner  appeared at Serial No.2 in the letter dated 10.3.1978 from the State  Govt.  of U.P. to the Department of Personnel and Administration Reforms, Ministry  of Home Affairs, New Delhi, which was in connection with five officers  out  of  the select list, who were not appointed to a Senior IAS Cadre post  and  thus,  in  respect of these officers, the said Government was  supposed  to  furnish a certificate that had such officers not been on a non-cadre  post,  they  would have been appointed to a senior IAS scale cadre post under  the  State Govt; that another certificate has also been annexed against the name  of  the petitioner in the said letter; that the petitioner being senior  to  Shri  Chitrangad Singh, whose name has been included in the select list  of  December 1977, the petitioner should have been appointed to the cadre  post  of  IAS prior to Chitrangad Singh as the petitioner was  given  provisional  seniority of the year 1973 in the IAS; that the gradation list demonstrated  the  name of the petitioner at Serial No.81 whereas the name of  Chitrangad  Singh appears at Serial No.89; that in all fairness to the petitioner,  his  name should have appeared in between serial No.83 and 84 in the Select List  of  1977; that in June 1976 State Government of U.P. posted the  petitioner  as  officer  on special duty at New Delhi directing him to  join  the  post  immediately;  that  the  petitioner reported for duty  on  27.6.1978  under  protest; that no terms of posts of OSD were stipulated either in the  Wire- less  Message  or  even thereafter for more than one year;  that  in  sheer  disgust  the  petitioner had to proceed on leave  w.e.f.  20.11.1978  after  being harassed, humiliated and having been continuously kept in a state  of  uncertainty,  inasmuch  as neither the petitioner was provided  any  office  space  nor had been paid any salary nor the terms of his  appointment  were  conveyed  to him.; that the indifferent attitude of the respondents  caused  mental strain on the health of the petitioner, who fell sick and the period  of his sickness lasted 297 days; that in September 1979 vide telex  message  of  the State Govt of UP, the petitioner was posted as  Director,  Manpower  Planning, Govt of U.P. and was directed to join the post immediately;  that  the  petitioner accordingly proceeded to Lucknow to join the charge of  new  post  but when the petitioner reported for duty, he was once again kept  on  forced  waiting  till 12.10.1979; that the petitioner was made to  face  an  extremely  humiliating situation as long as the petitioner remained at  new  place  of posting i.e. at Lucknow that he was not provided any  residential  accommodation  and had no funds to eke out his living at Lucknow  and  that  the petitioner had per force to submit his letter of conditional  voluntary  retirement  under  F.R.56 on 12.10.1979 stating therein that it  was  clear  that the Government was not interested to retain the petitioner in  service  as evidenced by series of events appearing in the past. The petitioner  was  not conveyed the decision of the Government in regard to the acceptance  of  his  notice of voluntary retirement within the stipulated period  of  three  months.  It  was only after about an year that the Government  vide  letter  dated  17.12.1980 conveyed to the petitioner that his notice for  voluntary  retirement  had been accepted w.e.f. 12.1.1980; that in between  the  State  Government  arbitrarily sought the period between 11.9.1979  to  12.10.1979  and 12.10.1979 to 12.1.1980 to be treated as period spent on leave admissi- ble.  The petitioner protested against this high-handed action of  the  re- spondent, clarifying that the petitioner had reported for duty on expiry of  medical  leave  and thereafter reported to join the post of  Director,  Man  Power Planning and thus, he had to be deemed on duty for the entire  intervening period and it was no fault of the petitioner in case the respondents  failed  to  provide  the office accommodation and kept  the  petitioner  on  forced  waiting;  that though respondents were bound  to  fix  provisional\/  regular pension of the petitioner forthwith consequent upon the  acceptance  of  his voluntary retirement no action was taken by the respondent in  this  behalf;  that  at the relevant time, the petitioner was under no  cloud  of  facing  any disciplinary proceeding or any judicial proceeding and no  such  departmental  or  judicial proceedings were even contemplated  against  the  petitioner,  which could form legitimate basis for not paying regular  pen- sion to the petitioner; that even in such cases, where a retiree is  facing  disciplinary\/judicial proceedings, provisional pension is always immediate- ly fixed and continues to remain payable to him till the conclusion of  the  disciplinary\/judicial  proceedings; that vide letter dated 1\/8.4.1982,  the  Accountant  General,  U.P. wrote to the State  Government  raising  certain  queries to be answered by the State Govt. so that the pension of the  peti- tioner  could  be  fixed. There was an endorsement to the  effect  that  an  amount  of  Rs.5000\/- being motor car advance was outstanding  against  his  name  and this amount was sought to be recovered alongwith  interest;  that  the petitioner, at no point of time, applied for or obtained any motor  car  advance  of  the sum of Rs.5000\/- or any other amount and  the  perfunctory  manner  in which the A.G., U.P.directed that the said amount  be  recovered  from the petitioner demonstrates the indifferent and casual approach of the  respondents towards the retirees; that during the period of five years, the  petitioner  relentlessly  pursued  his case of pensionery  dues  and  other  service  benefits as had accrued to him but the respondents turned  a  deaf  ear  to the petitioner and not a single penny was paid to  the  petitioner;  that  after 6.4.1978 which was the date from which officers juniors to  the  petitioner  put in the Select List of IAS were appointed to IAS, the  peti- tioner  is  deemed to be a member of IAS and entitled to  all  benefits  as  admissible  to an officer of IAS including retirement\/retrial benefits  and  all  such benefits have to be paid to him in accordance with the rules  and  regulations  governing the conditions of All India Service  Officers;  that  instead of settling the dues of the petitioner, the State Govt of U.P. vide  their letter dated 2.8.1985 called upon the petitioner to show cause within  one  month of the receipt of such notice as to why his 3\/4 pension  be  not  curtailed under Article 470(b) of the Civil Services Regulations as it  had  been tentatively decided by the Government on the ground of the CBI  report  in   respect  of  certain  events  imputing  lapses  on  his  part   during  petitioner’s tenure in DSIDC during the period 1974-75 and stating  further  that  on the whole his service had not been found  thoroughly  satisfactory  relying  on  certain  stale matters relating to antiquity  and  which  were  no nest;  that  the  proposed action of the respondent  was  in  respect  of  events, which occurred more than four years prior to the date of retirement  of  the  petitioner and as provided in the Rules, it was not  open  to  the  respondent to have issued a show cause notice in respect of such events and  stale  matters; that the petitioner was not given adequate time to  furnish  his  reply and to clarify his position even though it took nine  years  for  CBI  to  investigate the charges and it took another three  years  for  the  State Government to furnish to the petitioner some extracts of the same CBI  report, even then the petitioner submitted his reply within the  stipulated  time  of  15 days; that the petitioner obtained a copy of the  CBI  report,  which was denied to the petitioner by the State Government; that in the CBI  report  two  persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 120B and  420  IPC;  that the petitioner was never arraigned as an accused in the said case  and  the  petitioner  was at the top in the list of  prosecution  witnesses  and  while  framing  charge  the court heavily relied on the  statement  of  the  petitioner; that the other points raised in the said show cause notice  are  not sustainable, stale, nonest and against the prescribed Rules and Govern- ment Policy Circulars, Government Orders, Nazul Manual etc. and washed out  otherwise by acts of the State Government in giving select and unprecedent- ed assignments and promotions to the petitioner soon after some of the said  adverse commentaries were made and no refuge can be taken by the respondent  on these matters for denying to the petitioner his legitimate right to  the  pensionery benefits and dues.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Respondent  No. 4-DSIDC  filed  counter-affidavit admitting  that  the   petitioner, an officer of U.P. cadre was appointed as Managing Director  of  respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 14.8.1972 and subsequently  he  was appointed  as   the  Chairman-cum- Managing  Director of the  respondent-  Corporation  vide communication dated  9.12.1974; that thereafter Mr.Ashok Pradhan,  IAS  was appointed Managing Director  of respondent-Corporation in pursuance  of  the notification dated 10\/11.4.1997,    whereupon the petitioner  proceeded   on  leave;   that  the  petitioner sought  permanent  absorption   in   the  respondent-Corporation   and  tendered resignation  from  the  U.P.   Civil  Service  vide letter dated 27.9.1974 to be  effective  from  the   date  of   acceptance   of  the resignation.   His option for permanent absorption  in  the  respondent-Corporation  was forwarded by the Chief  Secretary,   Delhi   Administration  to  the  Secretary   of U.P.    Govt   vide   letter  dated  15.3.1973; that  the petitioner  proceeded on leave on 10\/11.4.1977.  It is  denied   that  the respondent conveyed to the State Govt that   leave   and  pensionery contribution as  also  GPF contribution in respect of the  peti- tioner  was   being  continued w.e.f. December  1974  in   view   of    the  impending   absorption  of  the  petitioner  in  Public  Sector   Organiza- tion-respondent   DSIDC;   that  Govt   of  U.P.  vide   its  letter  dated  22.6.1977 conveyed rejection of the request of the  petitioner   for perma- nent absorption in respondent-Corporation. Thereafter Services  Department,  Govt.  of  Delhi,  vide its  order  dated 26.11.77 placed the  services  of   the  petitioner  at  the disposal of the U.P. Government;  that  the  peti- tioner  was  paid salary upto  31.7.1977; that   after   his   repatriation   from  the  respondent- Corporation,  the petitioner withdrew his  contribu- tion  from   P.F. along  with employer’s share;   that  the  answering  re- spondent  approached  the  Service Department of respondent  No.1   with  a  request   to examine  the matter and  advice  suitably for  further  course   of  action in   this  matter vide  its letter dated 23.10.1997; that as  on  today,  nothing has been heard in   the  matter  from   the   Service   De- partment   of respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Respondent  No. 5-State of Uttar Pradesh, vide  its  counter-affidavit  disputed  the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain this writ  petition.  It  is further contended by respondent No. 5  that  petitioner’s  services were put at the disposal of DSIDC; that the petitioner voluntarily  retired  from  the Provincial Civil Service (PCS) on  12.1.1980;  that  his  retiral  benefits will be considered from that date in consonance with  the  Rules thereof; that the petitioner was posted as Officer on Special Duty in  the office of the Resident Commissioner, U.P. at New Delhi as the Member of  the PCS; that there is no record to suggest that the petitioner was kept on  forced  waiting till 12.10.1979; that the answering- respondent  has  taken  all  appropriate steps regarding voluntary resignation of  the  petitioner;  that  the  respondent got regularized petitioner’s service for  the  period  mentioned  to  his advantage; that the petitioner’s pension  could  not  be  fixed  in the absence of proper and relevant record submitted by the  peti- tioner;  that the Accountant General (III), U.P. G.A. (Pension  and  Audit)  Department was informed that no pension paper in the required proforma  was  received  and in the absence of the said paper no further action  could  be  taken;  that a letter dated 25.2.1984 was also sent to the  petitioner  for  necessary  action on his part. Therefore, the petitioner’s  allegation  re- garding  the  non-action of the answering defendant is baseless;  that  the  petitioner  voluntarily retired from PCS (Executive Branch)  on  12.1.1980,  therefore,  the retirement benefits available to an IAS Officer can not  be  given to him; that proper Rules and Procedures were followed in issuing the  show-cause  notice  dated 2.4.1985 to the petitioner; that  the  said  show  cause  notice  was under Section 470-B of the CSR under which  no  specific  time  frame  has been mentioned and, therefore, the show  cause  notice  is  valid;  that as the petitioner did not respond to the communication  issued  by the answering-respondent and as the necessary papers\/documents were  not  filed by the petitioner despite requests\/reminders, it was not possible  to  sanction pension and gratuity; that the petitioner responded for the  first  time vide letter dated 8.6.1994 in which he wrote that he had submitted the  pension  papers on the prescribed proforma on 31.10.1983 but the factum  of  non-receipt  of the necessary documents was communicated to the  petitioner  vide  letter dated 5.9.1984 but the petitioner did not respond to the  said  letter; that the pension matter of the petitioner could not be disposed  of  as  the petitioner has failed to submit the relevant  pension  papers\/docu- ments despite several reminders to that effect from the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent No. 5 filed additional affidavit on 28.4.2000 stating  that  as per Regulation No. 470(b) of the U.P Civil Service Regulations, 1966, as  amended, if the services of a provincial civil servant are not found to  be  satisfactory  then his pension can be reduced by the Appointing  Authority;  that since the services of the petitioner as M.D. of DSIDC on which post he  was  sent  on deputation were not found to be satisfactory,  a  show  cause  notice dated 2.4.1985 was issued to him by the answering-respondent  asking  the  petitioner  to show cause as to why 3\/4th part of his pension  be  not  reduced  for the reasons mentioned in the said notice; that the  petitioner  replied to the said show cause notice vide his reply dated 15.6.1988. After  due consideration by the Governor of the State of U.P., who is the appoint- ing authority of the petitioner, the explanation submitted by the petition- er was not found to be satisfactory and by order dated 27.4.1989 3\/4th part  of  the pension of the petitioner was reduced. This order was  communicated  to the petitioner at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Respondent No. 6, the Principal Accountant General-I, Allahabad in its  counter-affidavit  stated  that  the subject-matter of  the  writ  petition  primarily  concerns  respondent No. 5 i.e. Govt. of U.P.;  that  respondent  No.6  maintains, computes and authorises payment of G.P.F. and  other  pen- sionery  benefits to the retiring government servants on receipt of  neces- sary documents from the Government of U.P. In the instant case no  document  for sanction of pension and other retirement benefits have been received by  the  answering respondent; that as regards the grievance of the  petitioner  about the motor car advance is concerned, “No Due Certificate” had  already  been issued on 17.3.1983 by the answering-respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent  No.1 to 3 did not file counter. Respondent No.  2,  conse- quent  upon  the  order dated 17.3.1999, passed by this  Court,  placed  on  record copy of the minutes of the hearing dated 10.9.1999.\n<\/p>\n
6.   It  is  submitted by Shri G.P. Srivastav, petitioner  in  person  that  there are missing credits of 46 entries of GPF of Rs. 225\/- per month; that  the  petitioner was a permanent incumbent on the post of  Chairman,  DSIDC;  that on Sunday, 10.4.1997, a notification was issued appointing his succes- sor  and the petitioner was directed to proceed on leave though he had  not  applied  for leave; that the petitioner is victimized because  of  personal  animus  leading to his exit from respondent No. 4; that the petitioner  was  never  an  accused in the F.I.R.\/Report filed by the C.B.I.  In  fact,  the  petitioner was shown as Witness No.1 for the prosecution in the said charge  sheet;  that  there  was  no  C.B.I. case  registered  in  1977;  that  the  petitioner’s appointment should have been notified; that there is no  power  of  provisional  appointment; that there was no inquiry  held  against  the  petitioner  at any point of time; that the petitioner’s  junior  Chitrangad  Singh was given provisional seniority; that the petitioner should be  given  ex post facto entitlement and that no body would be affected thereby;  that  even after his ouster from respondent No. 4, the petitioner was not removed  from  the post of Chairman, Delhi Tourism Corporation; that he was  put  in  select  list for IAS and that he should have been put to cadre post yet  he  is excluded; that the petitioner should have been placed above  Mr.Chitran- gad  Singh,  who is at Serial No.20 and after Mr.Kalika Prasad, who  is  at  No.16 in the select list; that the petitioner reported to the duty pursuant  to Order at page 53 on the next day, though it was a lower grade. No  order  for creation of the post or emolument was passed and the petitioner was not  given  posting, hence he was forced to seek voluntary retirement; that  the  petitioner should be given pay and allowances of cadre post from  27.6.1978  to  12.1.2980 and scale would be Rs.1200-2000 plus special pay of  Rs.250\/-  per month plus D.A. plus H.R.A. etc. with all pensionery benefits; that now  there  is  no provision of provisional pension but gratuity remains  to  be  released;  that the petitioner’s pension is delayed for 20 years; that  12%  interest  be  granted on the delay of provident fund,  gratuity;  that  the  action  of  U.P. Government-respondent No. 5 forfeiting  3\/4th  pension  is  illegal; that there are 46 missing credit entries of Rs.10,350\/- on account  of the failure of the Accountant General of respondent No. 5 and the amount  has  been wrongly debited from the petitioner’s salary though he is not  at  fault; that the petitioner was appointed on 7.11.1950; that the period of 8  years’ service has not been accounted for.\n<\/p>\n
     It is submitted by Mr.Nischal, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3  that  the petitioner was not eligible for consideration as  vigilance  case  was pending against him on the relevant date and respondent No.5, which  is  the parent State of the petitioner had reduced the petitioner’s pension and  it would only be respondent No.5 who would be liable.\n<\/p>\n
     It is submitted by Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for  respondent  No.4  that the petitioner was from U.P. Cadre on deputation  to  respondent  No.4;  that the petitioner was Managing Director with respondent No.4  from  14.8.1972  and he was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director from 9.12.1974  to  10.4.1977;  that the petitioner’s request for permanent absorption  in  re- spondent No.4 was not accepted; that respondent No.4 has nothing to do with  the  relief  in the petition and if at all anyone is liable,  it  would  be  respondent  No.5; that after 10.4.1977, petitioner was repatriated  to  re- spondent No.5-State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
     It  is submitted by Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for respondent  No.  5  that in view of Regulation No.470(b) of U.P. Civil Service Regulation, 1996  the  pension of a provincial civil servant can be reduced if  his  services  are found not satisfactory; that the petitioner was served with show  cause  notice Annexure R-5\/2 dated 27.4.1989; by order dated 24.7.1989 a  decision  to  forfeit 3\/4 of petitioner’s pension came to be taken and the  same  has  not  been challenged by the petitioner; Annexure R-5\/1 is the  notification  dated  12.2.1996, which provides that if the services have not  been  thor- oughly  satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension may  make  such  reduction in the pension as it thinks proper.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Respondent No. 5, in his counter, raised dispute regarding the  terri- torial  jurisdiction  to entertain this petition. It may be noted  that  in  course  of  the submissions, learned counsel for respondent  No.5  did  not  argue  the point of want of territorial jurisdiction but since the  dispute  regarding  jurisdiction  is  raised in the counter by  respondent  No.5,  I  consider  the  same. I do not find any merit in this  submission  since  at  least  part of the cause of action can be said to have accrued  within  the  territorial jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the petitioner has  been  seeking  relief against respondent No.2 and 3 on the basis of  his  alleged  right for appointment to the IAS Cadre and the consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
8.   It is the common case that the petitioner was in the U.P. Cadre and on  deputation  came  to respondent No.4; that he was  Managing  Director  with  respondent  No.4  from 14.8.1972 and  Chairman-cum-Managing  Director  from  9.12.1974  to 10.4.1977. Thereafter the petitioner was repatriated  to  his  parent  U.P. cadre. The petitioner retired on 12.1.1980 (afternoon)  volun- tarily.  According to respondent No.4, the petitioner was paid salary  till  31.7.1977. According to the petitioner, vide notification dated  10.4.1977,  the petitioner’s successor was appointed in respondent No.4. All this would  go to show that as far as respondent No.4 is concerned, the petitioner  has  been  paid not only till the notification dated 10.4.1977 but also for  the  leave period upto 31.7.1977 and thereafter the petitioner went back to  his  parent  cadre  in respondent No.5. As seen above, according  to  respondent  No.2, the petitioner was not appointed to IAS under Regulation 9(1) of  the  IAS  (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. According  to  respondent  No.2 the order No.1085\/II-1-1978 dated 10.3.1978 stated to be addressed  to  Secretary of this department, Govt of Uttar Pradesh had certified that  the  petitioner  along  with  others would be officiated in a cadre  post  in  a  senior  scale identical\/higher to the time. Scale of senior post  on  which  they  were  working  at that time under explanation 4 of Rule  (1)  of  IAS  Regulation  of  Seniority Rules, 1953. According to respondent  No.2,  the  petitioner  was  not  appointed to IAS under Regulation  9(1)  of  the  IAS  (Appointment  by Promotion) Regulation, 1955; that officiating  appointment  to the cadre on select list officers under Rule 9(1) of the aforesaid Rules  are  not  akin to regular appointment to the IAS; that the  petitioner  was  once  included by the UPSC in 1977 select list at sl.No.39,  provisionally,  subject  to the outcome of inquiries pending against him. He was  not  made  unconditional in that list by UPSC on the recommendation of the State Govt.  and hence was not recommended and the officers junior to the petitioner  in  the 1977 select list were promoted to IAS on 6.4.1978; that the next selec- tion  committee  for Uttar Pradesh met on 22.12.78 and  prepared  the  1978  select  list  comprising  names of 56 officers, in which the  name  of  the  petitioner was not recommended. The petitioner was, therefore, not a member  of the IAS at any point of time. The name of the petitioner was not  recom- mended again in the subsequent select list of 1980 prepared by the  commit- tee on 15\/17.12.1980 also and that the petitioner was never a member of the  IAS at any point of time.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent  No.5 in the counter has stated that the petitioner  volun- tarily  retired  from PCS (Executive Branch) on 12.1.1980.  Therefore,  the  retirement benefits available to an IAS officer can not be given to him.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Vide  order  dated 17.3.1999 this court directed  respondent  No.2  to  consider  the  case  of the petitioner for grant of  pension  after  giving  hearing  to the petitioner and the 5th respondent. By the said  order,  re- spondent No.2 was directed to decide before 30.4.1999 whether the petition- er had been put on I.A.S. cadre.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent No.2, along with affidavit dated 14.9.1999, filed a copy of  the minutes of the hearing dated 10.9.1999. It has been stated in the  copy  of  the minutes that “as per the verified record, available in the  depart- ment, the petitioner was not appointed to IAS under Regulation 9(1) of  the  IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. Officiating appointment to  the Cadre posts of Select List Officers under Rule 9(1) of the IAS  (Cadre)  Rules,  1954,  are  not akin to regular appointment to the  IAS;  that  the  officer  was once included by the Union Public Service Commission  in  1977  Select List at Sl.No.39, provisionally, subject to the outcome of inquiries  pending against him. He was not made unconditional in that list by the UPSC  on the recommendations of the State Government and hence was not recommend- ed  for  appointment to IAS by the Government of  Uttar  Pradesh.  Officers  junior  to the petitioner in the 1977 select list were promoted to  IAS  on  6.4.1978.  The  next  selection committee for U.P. met  on  22.12.1978  and  prepared the 1978 select list comprising names of 56 officers in which  the  name of the applicant was not recommended. The officer was, therefore,  not  a Member of the IAS at any point of time. The name of the applicant was not  recommended  again  in the subsequent select list of 1980 prepared  by  the  Committee  on  15\/17th  December, 1980 also. Thus, the officer  was  not  a  Member  of the IAS at any point of time. Thus, the petitioner had not  been  put  on  IAS cadre and was confined to be in the employment  of  the  State  Civil  Service of the Govt of U.P. till his retirement from service.  Thus,  the  issue of granting an admissible pension has to be settled by the  gov- ernment of U.P. and respondent No.2-Union of India is not concerned in  the  matter.\n<\/p>\n
10.  It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 does not file counter  to  state  that  the  inclusion of petitioner’s name in 1977  select  list  was  provisional  subject to out come of inquiries pending against him nor  does  respondent No.5 say anything as regards the inclusion of petitioner’s  name  at  Sl.No.39 in the select list of 1977 and the non-recommendation  of  the  petitioner for appointment to IAS by respondent No.5. It is also not stated  in the counter as to when the inquiry was initiated, what were the  charges  against the petitioner, when it concluded and what was the out-come of  the  departmental inquiry.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Learned  counsel  for respondent No.5 vehemently relies on  the  order  dated  27.4.89 (Annexure R-5\/2), whereby the 3\/4 pension of the  petitioner  has  been  forfeited. It is suggested from Annexure R-5\/2  that  while  the  petitioner was posted as Chairman-cum-Managing Director, DSIDC from 1972 to  1977,  several serious irregularities came to the knowledge of the  Govern- ment  in inquiry against him on the basis of the complaint against him  and  in  this  regard,  the petitioner was served with show  cause  notice.  His  explanation was not found satisfactory, hence order Annexure R-5\/2. It  may  be noted that in the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5, the  reduction in pension is pursuant to Regulation 470(1)(b) and the  notifica- tion dated 12.2.1996 for which Annexure R-5\/1. Clause (b) provides that  if  the services are not being thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanction- ing  the  pension  should make such reduction in the amount  as  it  thinks  proper……..” Annexure R-5\/2, Order dated 27.4.89 can not be regarded  as  an  order under Regulation 470(1)(b) since the said notification came  into  effect from 12.7.1996 nor the order Annexure R-5\/2 refers to the so  called  unsatisfactory service rendered by the petitioner. Thus, for the purpose of  reduction\/ forfeiture of 3\/4 pension of the petitioner regulation 470(1)(b)  can not be resorted to and also for the reason that the acts alleged in the  show  cause notice dated 2.4.1985 (Annexure P-18) refers to acts  of  1954,  1956-57  and 1961-62. Thereafter, the petitioner has been given  number  of  promotions and also on deputation was sent to respondent No.4 as the Manag- ing Director and that the petitioner also worked as the Chairman-cum-Manag- ing  Director  of  DSIDC. Thus, the censure in the year  1954  and  adverse  entries of the years 1956-57 and 1961-62 would pale into insignificance and  can not be made the basis for reduction\/forfeiture of pension referring  to  Regulation 470(1)(b) as sought to be contended by the counsel for  respond- ent No.5.\n<\/p>\n
     It  is suggested from Annexure P-13, communication from  Joint  Secre- tary,  U.P. Government dated 15.7.1988 that the petitioner was on leave  on  medical grounds from 20.11.1978 to 12.9.1979 and on his return from  leave,  the  petitioner  was posted as Deputy Land Reforms Commissioner,  Board  of  Revenue, U.P. and later Director, Man Power Planning, U.P. Planning Organi- zation,  but the petitioner was not given charge of the post.  Accordingly,  these  orders  were  cancelled and the petitioner was kept in  a  state  of  waiting for further orders, leading his application dated 12.9.1979 seeking  voluntary retirement. It is also suggested from Annexure P-13 that  between  13.9.79 to 11.10.79, the petitioner remained without any post for no  fault  of  his  personally and the Government of U.P. allowed the  period  between  13.9.79 to be treated on duty due to compulsory waiting under financial hand book Part-2 Chapter 2-4 Fundamental Rule 9(6)(b)(111).  This would show the treatment meted out to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
12.  As  far  as  irregularities during the years 1972 to  1977  while  the  petitioner  was with respondent No.4-DSIDC are concerned according  to  the  petitioner  in  the  CBI report\/charge sheet the petitioner  was  cited  as  prosecution  witness No.1 and was not arrayed as the accused and it is  not  disputed that the CBI looked into the allegations, filed charge sheet dated  26.9.1980 (Annexure P-22) against certain persons and the list of witnesses  Annexure  P-22A  suggests  the name of the petitioner  as  the  prosecution  witness  No.1.  Annexure P-23 is the order dated 17.5.1982  passed  by  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  whereby charge was framed  against  the  accused  persons relying on the statement of the present petitioner recorded by  CBI  in  the  course of investigation. Admittedly,  the  petitioner  voluntarily  retired  w.e.f.  12.1.1980. The show cause notice Annexure  P-18  is  dated  2.4.1985  i.e. after five years of the petitioner’s  voluntary  retirement.  The  order  Annexure  R-5\/2 forfeiting 3\/4 pension came  to  be  passed  on  27.4.1989.  I  am unable to accept the submission of  learned  counsel  for  respondent  No.5 that under Rule 470-B of C.S.R. no specific time has  been  mentioned  and, therefore, show cause notice is valid. Even if there is  no  specific  time  frame provided in Rule 470-B of C.S.R., the issue  of  show  cause  notice  under Rule 470-B of C.S.R. has to be within  the  reasonable  time limit.\n<\/p>\n
13.  As  far as the petitioner’s entitlement on the basis of IAS  cadre  is  concerned,  I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the  peti- tioner for the reason that the petitioner had not been put on IAS Cadre and  the petitioner was not recommended for appointment to IAS by the Government  of  Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner was confirmed to be in the  employment  of  the State Civil Service of Government of U.P. till his retirement  from  service. The petitioner in my view should have challenged the action of the  non-recommendation\/non-inclusion  of his name in I.A.S. Cadre and  for  ap- pointment  to I.A.S. Cadre, by respondent No.5 and the  consequent  non-ap- pointment  to  the IAS Cadre by respondents No.1, 2 and 3 at  the  relevant  when his name was excluded in the select list of 1978 and thereafter.  This  would go to show that the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief on  the  basis  of  IAS Cadre and, therefore, the liability would  be  that  of  respondent No.5 only.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent  No.6, Principal Accountant General for the State of  Uttar  Pradesh has stated in the counter that no due certificate had already  been  issued on 17.3.1983 by respondent No.6. Annexure R-1 along with the counter  is the copy of the no due certificate issued by respondent No.6. It is also  stated  in the counter that no document for sanction of pension  and  other  retirement  benefits has been received by respondent No.6. Even  respondent  No.5  also in the additional affidavit states that the State of U.P.  wrote  number of registered letters to the petitioner to fill up his pension forms  so that his pension could be started. It is pertinent to note that respond- ent No.5 required the petitioner to fill up his pension forms on the  basis  of and consequent upon Annexure R-5\/2 whereby 3\/4 pension of the petitioner  has  been ordered to be forfeited. It is obvious that the petitioner  would  not fill up pension forms on the basis of\/pursuant to Annexure R-5\/2.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In  the present writ petition, the petitioner has also challenged  the  show cause notice dated 2.4.1985 as arbitrary, illegal and  unconstitution- al. It is pertinent to note that Annexure R-5\/2 states that the explanation  to  the show cause notice, filed by the petitioner was considered  and  the  same  was not found satisfactory, meaning thereby that no  further  inquiry  was  conducted  by the department against the petitioner and the  only  in- quiry,  therefore, by the CBI, which as pointed out above, culminated  into  citing  the  petitioner as prosecution witness and not  the  accused.  This  would show that there is no basis for the order Annexure R-5\/2.\n<\/p>\n
     The show cause notice Annexure P-18 and the consequent order  Annexure  R-5\/2,  appreciating the facts emerging from the record and  the  treatment  meted  out to the petitioner, smacks of mala fides and with a view  to  deprive the petitioner of his retirement benefits. Suffice it to say for  the  present  purpose  that the petitioner would be entitled  to  full  terminal  benefits  on  the basis of his employment with the State Civil  Service  of  Govt. of U.P.-respondent No.5 till his retirement from service and it would  be for respondent No. 5 to settle all the admissible claims payable to  the  petitioner  within a reasonable time. It need hardly be said that  Annexure  R-5\/1  and  2 can be of no benefit to respondent No.5 for  the  purpose  of  forfeiting\/reducing 3\/4 of the pension of the petitioner and the petitioner  is found entitled to full pension ignoring Annexure R-5\/1 and 2. It is true  that  the  petitioner has not earlier challenged this order  and  has  only  chosen to challenge the show cause notice Annexure P-18 by this writ  peti- tion. Looking to the treatment meted out to the petitioner, as pointed  out  above  and the CBI report Annexure P-22 and P-22A, with a view  to  redress  the  injustice caused to the petitioner the delay in challenging the  order  Annexure  R-5\/2  can  not impede the course of justice  and  thereby  giving  premium  to respondent No. 5 when a blatant injustice has been done to  the  petitioner  by  forfeiting his 3\/4 pension. It was expected  of  respondent  No.5  to  have acted justly and fairly towards its  employees  rather  than  indulge in baffling just claims of it’s employee’s and even by resorting to  technicalities.\n<\/p>\n
15.  It will be seen that according to the respondent the petitioner stated  by  his letter dated 8.6.1994 that he had submitted the pension  papers  on  the  prescribed  proforma on 31.10.1983 and the factum of  non-receipt  was  communicated  to  the petitioner vide letter dated 5.9.1984. It  is  to  be  appreciated that the non-receipt is communicated after more than 10 months.  If  the petitioner for the first time stated in his letter  dated  8.6.1994  than where was the reason for the respondent to communicate the non-receipt  of  papers  vide  letter dated 5.9.1984, which will go to  show  that  just  claims  of  the petitioner have been malafide denied for no  fault  of  the  petitioner  and  the petitioner would be entitled to the  interest  on  the  malafide  delayed  settlement of the pensionery dues of the  petitioner  at  least  from 1.1.1984 since the respondent within two months  of  31.10.1983  ought to have settled\/paid all just claims of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
16.  In the result, respondent No. 5 is directed to settle\/pay full retiral  benefits\/claims including pension without reduction to the petitioner after  adjusting  the amount, if any, paid to the petitioner within  three  months  from  today with 9% interest from 1.1.1984, failing which,  the  petitioner  would  be entitled to 12% interest from 1.1.1984 on the entire amount  pay- able to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
17.  The   compensation  payable  to  the  petitioner  is   quantified   at  Rs.25,000\/-  for the harassment, inconvenience and annoyance caused to  the  petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
18.     Petition disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000 Author: N Nandi Bench: N Nandi ORDER N.G. Nandi, J. 1. A Government servant, who sought voluntary retirement in January 1980 challenges Notice No.5110\/DO-(2)-881-952 dated 2.4.1985 seeking to forfeit 3\/4th amounts of pension of the Petitioner being arbitrary, illegal, with- […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000 - 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\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-10T11:11:34+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=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-10T11:11:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":6431,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000\",\"name\":\"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-10T11:11:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000 - 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\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-10T11:11:34+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-10T11:11:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000"},"wordCount":6431,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000","name":"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-10T11:11:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastav-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.P. Srivastav vs Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 2000"}]},{"@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\/176282","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=176282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176282\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}