{"id":178840,"date":"1991-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991"},"modified":"2015-11-10T21:44:03","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T16:14:03","slug":"union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2080, \t\t 1991 SCR (3) 895<\/div>\n
Author: J S Verma<\/div>\n
Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/09\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 2080\t\t  1991 SCR  (3) 895\n 1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 208 JT 1991 (3)\t594\n 1991 SCALE  (2)469\n\n\nACT:\n    Civil Service--Railway--P. C.O. Wings--Staffing  pattern\nSeparation  of\tProgress  Wing\tfrom  other   Wings--Railway\nBoard's decision dated 13.9. 1984---Whether discriminatory.\n    Constitution  of India, 1950--Articles 14, 16--Wings  in\nP.C.O. of Integral Coach Factory--Staffing pattern--Treating\nProgress Wing separate cadre--Railway Board's decision dated\n13.9.84--Whether discriminatory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory  comprises  of\nfour wings which include the Progress and Inspection Wings.\n    The order dated 8.6.1982 by General Manager stated\tthat\nin  accordance\twith  the  Railway  Board's  approval,\t the\nProgress Wing alone of the P.C.O. would be a separate  cadre\nand  not  the remaining wings. The Inspection Wing  was\t not\ntreated as a separate cadre unlike the Progress Wing.\n    Being  aggrieved, the respondents-the employees  in\t the\nInspection Wing filed Writ Petition in the High Court  which\nwas allowed by the Single Bench.\n    Meanwhile  the Integral Coach Factory issued a  circular\non  21.9.1984  conveying  Railway  Board's  decision   dated\n13.9.1984  regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os.  in\nthe workshops including the Integral Coach Factory.  Accord-\ning  to\t this decision, all posts in the P.C.O.\t except\t the\nProgress Wing continued to be ex-cadre posts and the  tenure\nof  these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to.\t The\nexisting position regarding en-cadering of the posts in\t the\nP.C.O. in all wings of Southern Railway and Progress Wing of\nIntegral Coach Factory was allowed to be continued.\n    The\t writ appeal of the railway administration was\tdis-\nmissed\tby  the Division Bench of the  High  Court,  against\nwhich  the present appeal by special leave was preferred  by\nthe Railway Administration.\n896\n    It was contended that the Inspection Wing performed\t the\nfunction  of inspecting the quality of the products  of\t the\nIntegral  Coach Factory and thereby ensured quality  control\nof  the\t products, whereas the Progress, Planning  and\tTime\nStudy  Wings of the P.C.O. were involved in the\t manufacture\nof these products and there was thus an intelligible differ-\nentia  between\tthe function of the Inspection Wing  on\t one\nside and the remaining Wings on the other.\nAllowing  the  appeal of the  Railway  Administration,\tthis\nCourt,\n    HELD: 1. In view of the nature of functions performed by\nthe  four  different wings of the P.C.O., the  High  Court's\nview  that the Inspection Wing and the Progress Wing of\t the\nP.C.O.\tmust be classified together and treated as  separate\ncadres,\t cannot be accepted. It is significant that even  at\nsome  of  the earlier stages, Inspection  Wing\twas  treated\ndifferently as a matter of policy. [901H-902A]\n    2.\tThe work of the Inspection Wing, is to\tinspect\t the\nquality\t of  the  manufactured products\t to  ensure  quality\ncontrol, while the Progress Wing is concerned with the stage\nprior tO manufacture of the products. For the efficiency  of\nthe  Inspection Wing which performs the duty  of  exercising\nvigilance  over\t the  production for the  sake\tof  ensuring\nquality\t of  the products, it is not unreasonable  to  think\nthat a periodic rotation of its personnel would be conducive\nto efficient functioning of the Inspection Wing. The  perma-\nnency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote  leth-\nargy  in them and may also tend to create vested  interests.\nThe possibility of change therein makes the existing person-\nnel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be  discov-\nered  by the replacement. The highest possible standards  of\nvigilance  by them is achieved by the possibility of  rever-\nsion  to the shop floor against their will if  the  required\ndegree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty\nis not maintained. [902B-D]\n    3.\tThe  work of the Inspection Wing being\tat  the\t end\npoint  with no further scrutiny thereafter, rotation of\t its\npersonnel  is likely to promote the efficiency of the  unit.\nThis factor is sufficient to provide a reasonable basis\t for\nclassification\tof the Inspection Wing differently from\t the\nProgress Wing and there is no ground to complain of discrim-\nination,  if  according to the Railway Board's\tpolicy,\t the\nInspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre like\t the\nProgress  Wing. The power of the railway  administration  to\nformulate  such a policy provided it is\t not  discriminatory\nbeing  rightly\tnot  challenged, this  conclusion  alone  is\nsufficient  to uphold the action of the railway\t administra-\ntion. [902D-F]\n897\n    4.\tThe  authority\tOf the Railway Board  to  adopt\t the\npolicy\tto  bring about the necessary changes in  the  staff\npattern\t for improving the efficiency of the  administration\nof units under its control and for the purpose of streamlin-\ning the Organisation provided there was no discrimination is\nundoubted. [903A]\n    S.K.  Chakarborthy\tand Ors. v. Union of India  &  Ors.,\n[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 425, referred.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3838  of
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.1987 of the Tamil
\nNadu High Court in W.A. No. 555 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
    K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, B.K. Prasad,
\nA.K. Srivastava, P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.
\nA.T.M. Sampath and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    VERMA, J. This matter brings to the fore once again\t the
\nineptitude with which litigation is conducted quite often on
\nbehalf of the Government of India and State Governments even
\nwhen important issues having lasting and wide  repercussions
\nare involved. The point in this case relates to the validity
\nof  a policy of the railway administration and is likely  to
\naffect\tthe staff pattern in several units. Inspite of\tthis
\nfact,  to  support validity of the impugned policy  the\t re-
\nquired materials were not produced in the High Court and  to
\novercome the adverse decision several opportunities given by
\nus  to produce the entire relevant record were not  availed.
\nThe  learned Additional Solicitor General informed us  after
\nseveral\t adjournments that better performance is not  possi-
\nble.  We,  therefore, concluded the hearing and\t proceed  to
\ndecide\ton the available materials. It is  indeed  fortunate
\nfor  the appellants that our conclusion is in their  favour.
\nThe railway administration with its countrywide network\t can
\nhelp  to improve this situation by a genuine effort in\tthis
\ndirection and thereby contribute also to saving of  needless
\nexpense and time. We, therefore, direct that a copy of\tthis
\njudgment be sent to the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of
\nRailways, Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
 In view of the situation indicated above, we are mentioning
\nonly
\n898<\/span>
\nthose facts which are necessary for deciding this matter and
\nwhich  are  accepted by both the sides. It is  not  unlikely
\nthat there may be more material in the available records  of
\nthe appellants to support our conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
    Briefly  stated the controversy in this  matter  relates
\nonly to the employees working in the Inspection Wing of\t the
\nProduction Control Organization (for short ‘P.C.O.’) of\t the
\nIntegral  Coach\t Factory, Perambur. The grievance  of  these
\nemployees in the Inspection Wing is to the implementation of
\nthe circular dated 8.6.1982 of the General Manager’s  Office
\n(Personnel  Branch\/Fur.),  Madras  of  the  Integral   Coach
\nFactory\t issued in supersession of the earlier circulars  on
\nthe  subject with the Railway Boards approval to  treat\t the
\nProgress  Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate cadre.\t The
\ngrievance  of the employees in the Inspection Wing  is\tthat
\nthere is no reasonable basis for this classification of\t the
\nProgress  Wing\tof the P.C.O. separately  denying  the\tsame
\nbenefit\t to  those  in the Inspection Wing.  In\t short,\t the
\nemployees of the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. also want  to
\nbe  in a separate cadre like those in the Progress Wing\t and
\nabsorbed  perma\t nently in the P.C.O. without  the  risk  of
\nbeing  reverted to the shop floor from which they  had\tbeen
\ntaken and where their lien continues.\n<\/p>\n
    A  brief history of the Production Control\tOrganization
\nin  the Integral Coach Factory, Perambur, may now be  given.
\nThe P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory was constituted  to
\nensure quality control of the production in the factory.  It
\ncomprises  of  four  wings which include  the  Progress\t and
\nInspection Wings. It appears that the policy for manning the
\ndifferent  wings of the P.C.O. remained nebulous  for  quite
\nlong and several changes therein were made from time to time
\nto  accommodate\t the staff’s point of view. To\tbegin  with,
\npersons\t from different trades in the shop floor were  taken
\non deputation for the different wings of the P.C.O. For\t the
\nProgress  Wing\tof the P.C.O., there was  also\tsome  direct
\nrecruitment, but the same was stopped after some time proba-
\nbly  in the year 1958 and it was decided that the  posts  in
\nthe Progress Wing be filled by taking persons on  deputation
\nfrom  the shop floor. On 22.4.1963, the Railway\t Board\tlaid
\ndown  uniform  policy for the P.C.Os. in all  units  of\t the
\nIndian\tRailways  according to which all the  posts  in\t the
\nP.C.Os. were made ex-cadre and every employee posted in\t the
\nP.C.O.\twas to be from a trade in shop floor. The  employees
\ntransferred from the shop floor to the P.C.O. were to retain
\ntheir  lien in the shop floor and deemed to be on  temporary
\ntransfer.  This gave rise to some practical  difficulty\t and
\nthe  permanently  absorbed staff in the\t P.C.O.\t were  given
\noption to revert to the
\n899<\/span>
\nshop floor. The staff directly recruited in the P.C.O.\twere
\nto  be\tallotted a trade and given the\toption\tfor  getting
\nabsorbed  in the shop floor.. On 13.10.1964, a\tmodification
\nwas  made  which is contained in the G.M. (P)’s\t letter\t No.
\nPB(S)\/M\/6\/ATC which refers to the Railway Board’s letter No.
\nE(NG) 59SR 6-22 dated 22.4. 1963. This was the first  stage,
\nas  described by the learned Additional\t Solicitor  General,
\nfor the employees in the P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Facto-
\nry,  Perambur.\tAt the next stage. this policy\twas  further
\nmodified  for  the  Inspection\tWing  by  a  circular  dated
\n13.8.1965  of the Office of the GM\/PB\/Shell of the  Integral
\nCoach  Factory.\t This  was a  half-way\tmeasure\t implemented
\nstraightaway in the Inspection Wing, but could not be imple-
\nmented in the other three wings, namely, Progress,  Planning
\nand  Time Study, because of certain  practical\tdifficulties
\ntherein. According to this modification, the Inspection Wing
\nwas  to form a separate ex-cadre unit and the  employees  in
\nthe  Inspection\t Wing were given proforma  position  in\t the
\ncadre  posts in their trade and could be reverted  to  their
\nparent\tcadre in the shop floor in the position\t which\tthey
\noccupied  in the shop floor. This again met with  difficulty
\nin implementation giving rise to circular dated 29.9.1967 of
\nthe  Office of the General Manager\/Personnel Branch  `Staff’
\nof the Integral Coach Factory. Option was given to the staff
\nin the Progress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O.
\nto  get absorbed and interpolated in the shop floor  leaving
\nthe Inspection Wing separate. This circular dated 29.9. 1967
\nwas  struck  down by the Madras High CoUrt  vide  its  order
\ndated  22.8.  1975 in a petition filed by employees  of\t the
\nshop  floor  on the ground that the General Manager  of\t the
\nIntegral  Coach Factory had no power to\t act  inconsistently
\nwith  the  Railway  Board’s circular and the  remedy  is  to
\nmodify the Railway Boards circular dated 22.4.1963.  Accord-
\ningly, the procedure laid down in the order dated 29.9. 1967
\nwas cancelled and all posts in the P.C.O. were declared\t ex-
\ncadre  by a circular dated 28.8. 1977 of the General  Manag-
\ner’s  Office (Personnel Branch\/Fur.) of the  Integral  Coach
\nFactory.  A modification m the earlier proposal was made  by
\nthis  order. All employees were to be allotted a  trade\t and
\ngiven option either to go to the shop floor or remain perma-
\nnently\tin the P.C.O. However, this too could not be  imple-
\nmented on account of the protest of the staff and the unions
\nrepresenting them. At the next stage, a proposal was made by
\nthe  Integral  CoaCh Factory to the Railway Board  which  is
\ncontained  in  the  letter dated 1.3. 1982  from  the  Chief
\nPersonnel  Officer,  Integral  Coach Factory  to  the  Joint
\ndirector,  Establishment, Railway Board. This was in  pursu-
\nance to the suggestion of the staff itself that the Progress
\nWing  alone be treated as separate cadre in the\t P.C.O.\t and
\nnot the remaining wings. Reasons in support of the  proposal
\nwere also given therein. The Railway Board
\n900<\/span>
\nconveyed  its  approval to this proposal in its\t letter\t No.
\nE(NG)  1-81 PM 1\/259(CA) dated 20.3. 1982. This led  to\t the
\nissuance  of  the order dated 8.6.1982 by  General  Manager,
\nIntegral Coach Factory, stating that in accordance with\t the
\nRailway\t Board’s  approval, the Progress Wing alone  of\t the
\nP.C.O.\twould  be  a separate cadre and\t not  the  remaining
\nwings. As a result of this decision, the Inspection Wing  is
\nnot  treated as a separate cadre unlike the  Progress  Wing.
\nThis  is the basis of the grievance of the employees of\t the
\nInspection Wing which led to the filing of the writ petition
\ngiving rise to this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    Writ Petition No. 4468 of 1982 filed in the Madras\tHigh
\nCourt  by the respondents was allowed by the learned  Single
\nJudge on 7.4.1984. Thereafter, another step was taken by the
\nrailway administration which may be mentioned. The  Integral
\nCoach  Factory\tissued\ta circular  on\t21.9.1984  conveying
\nRailway\t Board’s  decision  contained in  the  letter  dated
\n13.9.1984  regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os.  in
\nthe workshops including the Integral Coach Factory.  Accord-
\ning  to\t this decision, all posts in the P.C.O.\t except\t the
\nProgress Wing continued to be ex-cadre posts and the  tenure
\nof  these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to.\t The
\nexisting position regarding en-cadering of the posts in\t the
\nP.C.O. in all wings of Southern Railway and Progress Wing of
\nIntegral  Coach\t Factory  was allowed to  be  continued.  In
\nshort, it was a reversion to the initial stage contained  in
\nthe  order dated 22.4.1963 of the Railway Board\t except\t for
\nthe  Progress Wing. The writ appeal of the railway  adminis-
\ntration\t was  thereafter  dismissed by\tthe  High  Court  on
\n22.6.1987.  The further facts are not material for  deciding
\nthe point in controversy.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tshort,\tthe employees of the Inspection\t Wing  which
\ninclude\t the respondents, contend that they are entitled  to
\nbe treated similarly as the employees of the Progress  Wing,
\nwhose  continuance in the P.C.O. without the risk of  rever-
\nsion  to the shop floor is assured by the adoption  of\tthis
\npolicy. This contention of the respondents has been accepted
\nby  the High Court. The acceptance of the respondents  claim
\nresults in striking down the Railway’s policy to this extent
\nof not treating the Inspection Wing also as a separate cadre
\nlike  the  Progress Wing. It also affects the  prospects  of
\nthose  in the shop floor who are denied the chance of  being
\ntaken  in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. because  of\t the
\ncontinuance  permanently  of those already  there  retaining
\ntheir lien in the shop floor. It is admitted that the  serv-
\nice  conditions in the P.C.O. are better than those  of\t the
\ncorresponding  posts in the shop floor. This is\t the  reason
\nfor  those in the P.C.O. not wanting to revert to  the\tshop
\nfloor and the keenness of persons from the shop
\n901<\/span>
\nfloor to go to the P.C.O. Some employees working in the shop
\nfloor have preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9774 of 1990 arising
\nout  of a connected matter and have supported the  stand  of
\nthe railway administration taken in Civil Appeal No. 3838 of
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis common ground before us that the Inspection\tWing
\nof the P.C.O. performs the function of inspecting the quali-
\nty of the products of the Integral Coach Factory and thereby
\nensures\t quality  control  of the  products.  The  Progress,
\nPlanning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. are involved  in
\nthe  manufacture  of these products and come  at  the  stage
\nrelating  to manufacture of the products. There is  thus  an
\nintelligible differentia between the function of the Inspec-
\ntion Wing on one side and the remaining wings of the  P.C.O.
\non  the other. The background indicated earlier\t leading  to
\nthe  decision  by the Railway Board that the  Progress\tWing
\nalone would be treated as a permanent cadre in the  Integral
\nCoach  Factory and not the others, was reached on the  basis
\nof experience over a long period and was in consonance\twith
\nthe  opinion of the Staff Council representing the views  of
\nthe  staff  of the Integral Coach Factory. It  appears\tthat
\ncontinuity  in Progress Wing and rotation in the  Inspection
\nWing  was  considered desirable for better  efficiency.\t The
\nRailway Board being competent to effect necessary changes in
\nthe staff pattern of the various units under its control for
\nthe  purpose of streamlining the Organisation and  improving
\ntheir efficiency, took this decision for this purpose  which
\nis consistent with the view of the staff Council  represent-
\ning  the interest of the entire staff in the P.C.O. It\tdoes
\nappear that the railway administration did want at one\ttime
\nto  treat  all\tunits in the P.C.O.  as\t separate  permanent
\ncadres\tbut  practical difficulty in the  implementation  of
\nthat policy and opposition by the staff impelled it to\tgive
\nup  the same. Even here we find that while those already  in
\nthe  Inspection Wing want to remain there  permanently,\t the
\nothers\twho  are in the shop floor and would be\t denied\t the
\nprospect of being taken in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O.
\nif  the\t respondents’ contention is upheld, are\t opposed  to
\nthis  view.  The decision of the Railway  Board,  therefore,
\ntakes  into account all points of view and makes an  attempt
\nto  reconcile the conflicting interests while  ensuring\t im-
\nprovement  in the efficiency of the unit. If as a matter  of
\npolicy\tthe Railway Board approved the proposal made by\t the
\nmanagement  of\tthe  Integral Coach  Factory  to  treat\t the
\nProgress  Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate  cadre\t and
\nnot  so the remaining wings including the  Inspection  Wing,
\nthe same cannot be faulted unless it is held to be discrimi-
\nnatory\tor  arbitrary. In view of the  nature  of  functions
\nperformed by the four different wings of the P.C.O., we\t are
\nunable to agree with the High Court’s view that the  Inspec-
\ntion
\n902<\/span>
\nWing and the Progress Wing of the P.C.O. must be  classified
\ntogether  and treated as separate cadres. It is\t significant
\nthat even at some of the earlier stages, Inspection Wing was
\ntreated differently as a matter of policy.\n<\/p>\n
    The work of the Inspection Wing, as indicated earlier on
\nthe  basis of undisputed facts before us, is to inspect\t the
\nquality\t of  the  manufactured products\t to  ensure  quality
\ncontrol, while the Progress Wing is concerned with the stage
\nprior to manufacture of the products. For the efficiency  of
\nthe  Inspection Wing which performs the duty  of  exercising
\nvigilance  over\t the  production for the  sake\tof  ensuring
\nquality\t of  the products, it is not unreasonable  to  think
\nthat a periodic rotation of its personnel would be conducive
\nto efficient functioning of the Inspection Wing. The  perma-
\nnency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote  leth-
\nargy  in them and may also tend to create vested  interests.
\nThe possibility of change therein makes the existing person-
\nnel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be  discov-
\nered  by the replacement. The highest possible standards  of
\nvigilance  by them is achieved by the possibility of  rever-
\nsion  to the shop floor against their will if  the  required
\ndegree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty
\nis not maintained. The work of the Inspection Wing being  at
\nthe end point with no further scrutiny thereafter,  rotation
\nof its personnel is likely to promote the efficiency of\t the
\nunit.  This  factor is sufficient to  provide  a  reasonable
\nbasis for classification of the Inspection Wing\t differently
\nfrom the Progress Wing and there is no ground to complain of
\ndiscrimination, if according to the Railway Board’s  policy,
\nthe Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre\tlike
\nthe  Progress Wing. The power of the railway  administration
\nto formulate such a policy provided it is not discriminatory
\nbeing  rightly\tnot  challenged, this  conclusion  alone  is
\nsufficient  to uphold the action of the railway\t administra-
\ntion.  The  contrary view taken by the\tHigh  Court  cannot,
\ntherefore, be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tfind  that the competence of the  Railway  Board  to
\nchange\tthe  staff pattern of the P.C.O.  in  the  Kharagpur
\nRailway\t Workshop of South Eastern Railway,  was  challenged
\nbefore\tthe  Central Administrative Tribunal.  The  decision
\nthere  was contained in a Memorandum of 1979 declaring\tthat
\nthe  posts in the P.C.O. in the Kharagpur  Railway  Workshop
\nwould  be treated as ‘ex-cadre’ differently from the  policy
\nin  Integral Coach Factory. The Tribunal rejected the  chal-
\nlenge  based on discrimination between two units and a\tspe-
\ncial leave petition filed in this Court was dismissed.\tThis
\nCourt  in  S.K. Chakraborthy and Ors. v. Union\tof  India  &
\nOrs.,<\/a> [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 425 upheld the
\n903<\/span>
\nauthority  of  the Railway Board to adopt such a  policy  to
\nbring  about the necessary changes in the staff pattern\t for
\nimproving  the\tefficiency of the  administration  of  units
\nunder  its control and for the purpose of  streamlining\t the
\nOrganisation provided there was no discrimination.
\n    Consequently,  the\tappeal is allowed and  the  impugned
\njudgment  of  the High Court is set aside resulting  in\t the
\ndismissal  of the Writ Petition filed in the High Court.  No
\ncosts.\tA  copy of this judgment be sent  to  the  Chairman,
\nRailway Board as directed.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n904<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2080, 1991 SCR (3) 895 Author: J S Verma Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: A. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/09\/1991 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991 - 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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-10T16:14:03+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=\"18 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-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-10T16:14:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991\"},\"wordCount\":2882,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-10T16:14:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991\"}]},{\"@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 And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991 - 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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-10T16:14:03+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991","datePublished":"1991-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-10T16:14:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991"},"wordCount":2882,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991","name":"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-10T16:14:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-a-radhakrishnan-and-ors-on-4-september-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Ors vs A. Radhakrishnan And Ors on 4 September, 1991"}]},{"@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\/178840","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=178840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}