{"id":186756,"date":"1992-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992"},"modified":"2018-06-25T20:13:16","modified_gmt":"2018-06-25T14:43:16","slug":"banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992","title":{"rendered":"Banaras Hindu University, … vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Banaras Hindu University, … vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 780, \t\t 1992 SCR (1) 360<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDR. INDRA PRATAP SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/01\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nRAMASWAMI, V. (J) II\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR  780\t\t  1992 SCR  (1) 360\n 1992 SCC  Supl.  (2)\t2 JT 1992 (1)\t320\n 1992 SCALE  (1)185\n\n\nACT:\n     University\t Grants Commission-Merit  Promotion  Scheme-\nPara 2 (a)-Object and scope of.\n     University-Lecturer-Promotion as Reader-Requirement  of\n\"eight\tyears continuous service\"-Appointment  as  temporary\nlecturer in Banaras Hindu University-Gap of 3 months and  20\ndays in service-Appointment as Reader in Nagpur\t University-\nReappointment\tas  permanent  Lecturer\t in  Banaras   Hindu\nUniversity-Claim  for promotion as Reader held\tsustainable-\nHeld para 2 (a) recognizes eight years service in more\tthan\none   University-Gap   in  service  held   of\tthe   nature\ncontemplated  by  para\t2 (a)- Service\trendered  in  Nagpur\nUniversity  held liable to be counted towards  eight  year's\nservice.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     With  a  view to providing an  incentive  to  teachers,\npreventing   stagnation\t  and  also  for   improving   their\nefficiency the University Grants Commission evolved a scheme\ncalled\t\"Merit Promotion Scheme\".  On being  selected  under\nthe  said  scheme  a lecturer is designated  as\t Reader\t and\nbecomes\t entitled  to  a  higher  pay  scale.\tOne  of\t the\nconditions  under the scheme which a lecturer  must  satisfy\nbefore\the becomes entitled to promotion is eight year's  of\ncontinuous service of which at least four years should be in\nthe institution where he is being considered for promotion.\n     The  respondent  was  appointed as a  lecturer  by\t the\nappellant-University,  on temporary basis, on  26.8.1974  in\nthe  Department\t of  Basic Principles in  the  Institute  of\nMedical Sciences for a period of eleven months.\t At the\t end\nof eleven months, he was re-appointed on the same basis\t for\na  further  period  of\televen months.\t By  means  of\tsuch\nappointments   he  served  as  a  temporary  Lecturer\tfrom\n26.8.1974   till  31.3.1980.  There  was  no  re-appointment\nthereafter and from 1.4.80 to 20.7.80 he remained without  a\njob.  On 21.7.80 he was appointed as a Reader in the  Nagpur\nUniversity  where he served till 20.9.82. On 22.9.82 he\t was\nappointed   as\ta  permanent  lecturer\tin  the\t  appellant-\nUniversity in the same Department where he worked earlier\n\t\t\t\t\t     361\ntemporarily and his salary was fixed by giving him  fourteen\nincrements so as to protect his last pay drawn at Nagpur.\n     In\t 1983  the respondent claimed  promotion  under\t the\nMerit Promotion Scheme but the University rejected his\tcase\non  the ground that he does not satisfy the  requirement  of\neight  years'  of continuous service in\t the  cadre  because\nthere was a break in his service between 1.4.80\t to  20.7.80\nand  that  his service in the Nagpur  University  cannot  be\ncounted.\n     The respondent filed a writ petition in the High  Court\nand  pursuant to an interim order passed by the\t High  Court\nthe  respondent's  case\t was  considered  by  the  Selection\nCommittee  and the decision of the Committee  was kept in  a\nsealed cover.\n     The  High\tCourt allowed the petition by  holding:\t (i)\nthat  the respondent's service in the Nagpur University\t was\nliable\tto  be counted towards the eight  years'  continuous\nservice\t  because  para\t 2  (a)\t of  the  scheme   expressly\nrecognizes service in more than one University; (ii) a long-\nstanding  practice  of\tthe University was  to\tcondone\t the\nbreaks in service in such cases. Consequently the High Court\nquashed\t  the  University's  order  rejecting\trespondent's\napplication   and   directed   the   University\t  to   place\nrecommendations\t of  the  Selection  Committee\tbefore\t the\nExecutive  Council  and to promote him as Reader if  he\t was\napproved by the Executive Council.\n     The University filed an appeal in this Court contending\nthat  (i)  the\tHigh  Court erred in  holding  that  the  re\nspondent   satisfied   the  requirement\t of   eight   years'\ncontinuous  service;  (ii) the power of\t the  University  to\ncondone\t short breaks in service was exercised in cases only\nwhere the delays in reappointment were caused by  procedural\ndelays\tin  the\t office of University;\t(iii)  there  was  a\ndefinite break in the respondent's service and such a  break\nhas never been condoned by the University.\n     On behalf of the respondent it was contended that\tpara\n2 (a) of the scheme recognizes a teacher serving two or more\nUniversities  for the purposes of \"continuous  eight  years\"\nservice;  (ii) the requirement of continuous service  should\nbe  understood\thaving\tregard to  the\tunderlying  aim\t and\nobject;\t (iii)\tIn  many  other\t cases\tthe  University\t has\ncondoned similar breaks and refusal to do so in his case was\narbitrary and discriminatory.\n\t\t\t\t\t      362\n     Dismissing the appeal, this Court,\n     HELD:  1.\tThe expression \"continuous service\"  has  no\nsingle\tunalterable  meaning and its content  varies  having\nregard to the context. [368-C]\n     Jeevan  Lal Ltd. v. Its workmen, [1962] 1\tS.C.R.\t717;\nreferred to.\n     \"Words and Phrases\" Vol. 9; referred to.\n     2.\t The expression \"eight years of continuous  service\"\nin  para  2  (a) of the scheme should  be  understood  in  a\nreasonable  manner having regard to the underlying  aim\t and\nobject.\t In understanding and construing the said expression\nthe  object underlying the said requirement should be  taken\ninto  consideration.   The object behind para 2 (a)  of\t the\nscheme\tis to ensure that a teacher does have  eight  years'\nteaching experience. [366 F, H, 367-A]\n     2.1.Para  2  (a) of the Merit Promotion  Scheme  itself\nexpressly recognizes that the eight years' service may be in\nmore  than  one institution, the only  requirement  being  a\nminimum of four years service in the institution where he is\nbeing considered for promotion under the scheme.  In case of\nshift  from one University to other or from one\t institution\nto  the\t other it can reasonably be presumed that  there  is\nbound to be some interval.  The interval may be of a day,  a\nweek or a month.  What is relevant is not the length of\t the\ninterval  or  break, as it may be called,  but\tits  nature.\nHowever,  the  length  of  such\t interval  is  not   totally\nirrelevant; but one must take into consideration the  reason\nfor  which break, or the circumstances in which such  break,\nhas occurred. [366 F-H]\n     2.2  The  gap  in the respondent's service\t is  of\t the\nnature contemplated by para 2 (a) of the scheme.  True it is\nthat  it is a bit too long but even so in the light  of\t the\ncircumstance  that  the\t respondent  was  reappointed  on  a\npermanent  basis,  on the very same post, in the  very\tsame\ndepartment,  the  length  of  the  said\t break\tpales\tinto\ninsignificance. [369 B-C]\n     3. It is also evident from record that in case of other\ntwo  teachers who had not completed eight years' service  by\nthe  prescribed date the Vice-Chancellor and  the  Executive\nCouncil\t decided to extend the eligibility period  till\t the\ndate   of  interview  so  as  to  make\tthem  eligible\t for\nconsideration which shows that the University\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     363\nhas been passing appropriate orders wherever the justice  of\na  case\t demanded.  The same treatment ought  to  have\tbeen\nextended to the respondent, in all the circumstances of\t the\ncase. [370 E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1626 of
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated 22.12.1987  of\t the
\nAllahabad  High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.\t3396
\nof 1985.\n<\/p>\n
     M.L. Verma, L.R. Singh, Vikas Singh and Yunus Malik for
\nthe Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     P.P.  Rao, T.N. Singh, B.M. Sharma and S.N.  Singh\t for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     B.P  JEEVAN  REDDY, J. This Civil Appeal  is  preferred
\nagainst\t the judgment and order of a Division Bench  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the
\nrespondent Dr. Indra Pratap Singh.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent  was  appointed as a  lecturer  by\t the
\nappellant-University,  on temporary basis, on  26.8.1974  in
\nthe  department\t of  Basic Principles in  the  Institute  of
\nMedical\t Sciences.   His  appointment was  effective  for  a
\nperiod\tof eleven months.  At the end of eleven\t months,  he
\nwas  reappointed on  the same basis for a further period  of
\neleven\tmonths.\t  By  means of\tsuch  appointments,  he\t was
\ncontinued  upto 31.3.1980.   There  was\t no   re-appointment
\nthereafter.  On 21.7.1980, the respondent was appointed as a
\nReader in Sri Ayurved College of the Nagpur University.\t  He
\nworked\tthere till 20.9.1982. On 22.9.1982 he was  appointed
\nas  a lecturer in the appellant-University in the very\tsame
\ndepartment,  on\t a permanent basis.  On\t this  occasion\t his
\nsalary\twas fixed giving him as many as fourteen  increments
\nso as to protect his last drawn pay at Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
     Banaras  Hindu University is a Central University.\t  It
\nis  entirely  funded  by the  University  Grants  Commission
\n(U.G.C.).   The\t U.G.C. had evolved a scheme  called  `Merit
\nPromotion  Scheme’  with a view to provide an  incentive  to
\nteachers,  to prevent stagnation and also to  improve  their
\nefficiency.   One  of the conditions which a  lecturer\tmust
\nsatisfy\t before\t he becomes entitled to promotion  is  eight
\nyears’\tcontinuous  service.  Clause (a) of para  2  of\t the
\nScheme which provides for the said qualification reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  364<\/span><\/p>\n
\t “2(a).\t  Teacher  in  the  University\t departments
\n\t engaged in advance teaching and research and  whose
\n\t contribution and achievements are such as to  merit
\n\t recognition must be considered for merit  promotion
\n\t in the first instance after completing eight  years
\n\t of continuous service in their respective cadre, of
\n\t which\tat  least  four\t years\tshould\tbe  in\t the
\n\t institution  where he\/she is being  considered\t for
\n\t such assessment and merit promotion.”\n<\/p>\n
     On\t being selected under the Merit Promotion  Scheme  a
\nlecturer  is designated as Reader and becomes entitled to  a
\nhigher pay scale.  The selection under this scheme has to be
\nmade by the University concerned no doubt in accordance with
\nthe criteria evolved by the U.G.C.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent applied for being selected\t under\tsaid
\nscheme\tin the year 1983.  The University, however,  was  of
\nthe  opinion  that he is not eligible for  being  considered
\ninasmuch  as  he does not satisfy the requirement  of  eight
\nyears’\tcontinuous service in the cadre.  The objection\t was
\nthat  there was a break in his service between 1.4.1980\t and
\n20.7.1980  (both  days\tinclusive)  which  means  that\t his
\ncontinuous  service can be counted only from 21.7.1980.\t  If
\nso  calculated, he does not satisfy the said requirement  by
\nthe  year 1983.\t Another objection raised by the  University
\nwas  that  the\tservice rendered by the\t respondent  in\t the
\nNagpur University cannot be counted.  The respondent’s case,
\nhowever,  was not only that his service at Nagpur is  liable
\nto  be counted but that the university was competent to\t and
\nought  to condone such breaks in service and that indeed  it
\nhas  condoned  such breaks in service in the case  of  other
\nteachers.  Refusal to do so  in the case  of respondent,  it
\nwas submitted, was discriminatory and arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t view  of  the stand taken by  the  University,\t the
\nrespondent  approached\tthe Allahabad High Court by  way  of
\nCivil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3396 of 1985.  At\t his
\ninstance the High Court made an interim order directing\t the
\nUniversity  to\tplace  the  petitioner’s  case\tbefore\t the
\nSelection   Committee  (constituted  for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\nselection under the said scheme).\n<\/p>\n
     According\tto  the\t counsel  for  the  University,\t the
\nrespondent’s  case has accordingly been considered  and\t the
\ndecision of the Selection Committee kept in a sealed  cover.
\nThe  matter  has not yet been placed  before  the  Executive
\nCouncil\t of the University which is the final  authority  in
\nthe matter of selection under the scheme, says the counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\tCourt has allowed the writ petition  on\t the
\nfollowing reasoning:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t365<\/span><\/p>\n
a  long-standing practice in vogue in the University  is  to
\ncondone\t breaks in service in such cases. Refusal to condone
\nthe break in service in the case of the respondent, more  so
\nwhen  he  was  given extra increments at  the  time  of\t his
\npermanent  appointment as a lecturer in this  University  in
\nthe  year 1982 (with a view to bring his salary on par\twith
\nthe  salary  he\t was  drawing as  a  reader  in\t the  Nagpur
\nUniversity)  is not justified.\tThe service rendered by\t the
\nrespondent  in\tthe Nagpur University is also liable  to  be
\ncounted towards the eight years’ continuous service.  Indeed
\npara  2\t (a) of the Scheme expressly recognizes\t service  in
\nmore  than one University.  In as much as  the\trespondent’s
\ncase has already been considered by the Selection  Committee
\nin  pursuance of the interim orders, his case should now  be
\nplaced\tbefore\tthe  Executive Council and if  he  is  found
\nsuitable he should be entitled to promotion\/Selection  under
\nthe  scheme with effect from the same date from which  other
\nteachers  of the University interviewed for the first  round
\nof  promotion were appointed.  The operative portion of\t the
\njudgment reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “In  the result, the writ petition succeeds and  is
\n\t allowed.   The orders of the  University  rejecting
\n\t applications of the petitioner for condoning  break
\n\t in  service  and  for being  considered  for  merit
\n\t promotion are quashed.\t The University is  directed
\n\t to  place  the\t recommendation\t of  the   Selection
\n\t Committee before the Executive Council in its\tnext
\n\t meeting.   It\tis further directed to\tappoint\t the
\n\t petitioner on the post of reader in the  Department
\n\t of  Basic  Principles in the Institute\t of  Medical
\n\t Sciences of the University, if he has been selected
\n\t for  promotion by the Selection Committee  and\t its
\n\t recommendation\t  is  approved\t by  the   Executive
\n\t Council  with effect from the same date from  which
\n\t other\tteachers of the University  interviewed\t for
\n\t first\tround  of  promotions  were  appointed.\t  We
\n\t direct the parties to bear their own costs.”
\n     The  principal contention urged by the learned  counsel
\nfor the petitioner-University is that the Court was in error
\nin holding that the respondent satisfied the requirement  of
\neight  years’  continuous  service.   The  counsel  did\t not
\ndispute the power of the University to condone short  breaks
\nin service, but such power, he said, was exercised in  cases
\nonly  where  the  delays in re-appointment  were  caused  by
\nprocedural  delays in the office of the\t University.   There
\nhas  been  no  case,  he  submitted,  where  the  University
\ncondoned  the  break  in service  of the  nature  concerned,
\nherein.\t The respondent left this University,  remained\t out
\nof  job\t for a period of three months 20 days and  then\t was
\nappointed  as a Reader in the Nagpur University.  This is  a
\ndefinite break in service  and such a break has
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  366<\/span>
\nnever  been  condoned  by  the\tUniversity.   The   counsel,
\nhowever, did not urge before us that the service rendered by
\nthe  respondent\t in the Nagpur University should  not  count
\ntowards the eight years’ qualifying service.  On  the  other
\nhand,  learned\tcounsel\t for the  respondent  supported\t the
\njudgment of the High Court on the following reasoning:\tPara
\n2 (a) of the scheme recognizes a teacher serving two or more
\nUniversities during the said period of eight years, the only
\nrequirement being that at least four years out of it  should
\nbe in  the  institution where he  is  being  considered\t for
\npromotion\/selection  under the said scheme; the\t requirement
\nof  eight  years’  continuous  service\tmust  be  reasonably
\nunderstood  having regard to the underlying aim and  object;
\nwhere  a teacher serves two or more Universities during\t the
\nsaid  period, it can reasonably be presumed that there\twill
\nbe breaks in his service, whether  the break is of a day,  a
\nweek,  a  month\t or  a couple of  months,  it  is  unlikely-
\nordinarily  speaking-that  a teacher gets  re-employment  in
\nanother\t University and joins there on the very next day  of
\nhis  being relieved from the first University.\t The  object
\nbehind para 2 (a) of this scheme is to ensure that a teacher
\ndoes  have eight years’ teaching experience.   Moreover,  in
\nthe case of this very respondent there were gaps of about  a
\nweek  or so on every occasion he was re-appointed  prior  to
\n1980;  the  University\tnever  treated\tthem  as  breaks  in
\nservice.Above all, at the time of his permanent\t appointment
\nin  the year 1982 he was given a large number of  increments
\nboth in view of his past service in the University and\talso
\nwith a view to\tprotect his last pay drawn in the University
\nat Nagpur.  In many other cases the University has  condoned
\nsimilar\t breaks of two to three months; refusal to do so  in
\nthe case of the respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t agree with the learned counsel for  the  respondent
\nthat  the  expression “eight  years of\tcontinuous  service”
\nin para 2  (a)\tof  the scheme should  be  understood  in  a
\nreasonable  manner having regard to the underlying aim\t and
\nobject.\t  Para\t2 (a) itself expressly recognizes  that\t the
\neight  years’ service may be in more than  one\tinstitution,
\nthe  only requirement being a minimum of four years  service
\nin  the\t institution  where  he\t is  being  considered\t for
\npromotion  under  the  scheme.\tIn case of  shift  from\t one
\nUniversity to other-or from one institution to the  other-it
\ncan  reasonably be presumed that there is bound to  be\tsome
\ninterval.  The interval may be of a day, a week or a  month.
\nWhat is relevant is not the length of the interval or break,
\nas it may be called, but its nature.  We do not mean to\t say
\nthat length of such interval is totally irrelevant; what  we
\nmean, however, is that one must take into consideration\t the
\nreason\tfor which break or the circumstances  in which\tsuch
\nbreak-has  occurred.   Another\tfactor\tto  be\ttaken\tinto
\nconsideration  in  understanding  and  construing  the\tsaid
\nexpression
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      367<\/span>
\nis the object underlying the said requirement.\tAccording to
\nus,   the  object  is  to  ensure  eight   years’   teaching
\nexperience.   It  is  true that there is a  break  of  three
\nmonths\t20  days in the respondent’s  service  and  teaching
\nexperience.   We also take note of the fact that it was\t not
\nthe  vacation  time  for academic  institutions.   But\tthis
\ncircumstance  must  be\tweighed\t against  a  counter-vailing
\ncircumstance  in  favour  of the respondent  viz.,  his\t re-
\nappointment on a permanent basis in the very same department
\nin  the\t University in the year 1982.  As stated  above,  he
\nserved\t as  a\ttemporary  lecturer  from   26.8.1974\ttill
\n31.3.1980.   From 1.4.1980 to 20.7.1980 remained  without  a
\njob.   On  21.7.1980  he was appointed as a  Reader  in\t the
\nNagpur\tUniversity-in the very same subject-where he  served
\ntill 20.9.1982.\t On 22.9.82 he was appointed as a  permanent
\nlecturer  in this very University and in the  same  category
\nand  subject.\tOn  this occasion, he  was  granted  a\tgood
\nnumber\tof  increments.\t  The  University  says\t that  these
\nincrements were granted with a view to protect his last\t pay
\ndrawn  by him in the Nagpur University while the  respondent
\nsays  that it was granted not only for the said purpose\t but
\nalso  in the light of his past service in  this\t University.
\nIt is true that he was not given seniority since  26.8.1974.
\nEven  so the question is whether the gap of three months  20
\ndays is such a long gap as not to merit condonation- or\t for
\nthat  matter to be termed as a break in service for purposes
\nof para 2 (a) of the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
     In Jeevan Lal Limited  v. Its Workmen, [1962] 1  S.C.R.
\n717,   the   expression\t “continuous   service”\t  fell\t for
\nconsideration  of  this\t court.\t  The  employee\t joined\t the
\nappellant’s  service  as a workman in 1929 and\tresigned  in
\n1957.\tDuring\tthis  period he remained  absent  from\tduty
\nwithout permission or leave for nearly eight months  between
\nFebruary,  1945\t to  October, 1945.   Under  an\t award\tmade
\nbetween\t the employer and the workmen, a scheme\t was  framed
\nwherein\t  the  concerned  clause  was  that  “on   voluntary
\nretirement or resignation of an employee after fifteen years
\ncontinuous service, gratuity at the same rate as above”\t was
\npayable.   The question was whether  the  respondent-workman
\nsatisfied  the requirement of 15 years’ continuous  service.
\nGajendragadkar,\t J. speaking for the Division Bench held  in
\nfavour of the workmen on the following reasoning:
\n\t “……there  can be no doubt that in\ta  different
\n\t context    the\t same  words  can  and\toften\thave
\n\t different meanings.  As this Court has observed  in
\n\t Budge\tBudge Municipality v. P.R.  Mukherjee,<\/a>\t“the
\n\t same  words may mean one thing in one\tcontext\t and
\n\t another  in different context.\t This is the  reason
\n\t why decisions on the meaning  of particular word or
\n\t collection  of words found in other   statutes\t are
\n\t scarcely of much value when
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      368<\/span>
\n\t we have to deal with a specific statute of our own;
\n\t they may be helpful but cannot be  taken as  guides
\n\t or  precedents”…….”Continuous service”  in\t the
\n\t context  of  the scheme of gratuity framed  by\t the
\n\t tribunal  in the earlier reference  postulates\t the
\n\t continuance  of  the  relationship  of\t master\t and
\n\t servant between the employer and his employees.  If
\n\t the   servant\t resigns  his\temployment   service
\n\t automatically\tcomes  to an end.   If\tan  employer
\n\t terminates  the service of his employee that  again
\n\t brings the continuity of service to an end.  If the
\n\t service of the employee is brought to an end by the
\n\t operation of any law that again is another instance
\n\t where\tthe  continuance  is disrupted;\t but  it  is
\n\t difficult  to hold that merely because an  employee
\n\t is absent without obtaining leave that itself would
\n\t bring to an end the continuity of his service.”
\n     This  decision does emphasises the fact that  the\tsaid
\nexpression  has no single unalterable meaning and  that\t its
\ncontent varies having regard to the context.
\n\t In “Words and Phrases” Vol.9,, the word “continuous
\n\t employment” is assigned the following meaning:
\n\t “It  means working with reasonable regularity,\t and
\n\t work  does not cease to be “continuous” because  of
\n\t interruptions\t in  occupation\t due  to periods   of
\n\t temporary  illness, such as are incident to  people
\n\t of   normal   health.\t “Continuously”,   as\tused
\n\t in regulations defining total permanent  disability
\n\t under\twar  risk policy, does not  denote  absolute
\n\t continuity.”\n<\/p>\n
     Again,  the  word\t“continuous service”  is  given\t the
\nfollowing meaning:\n<\/p>\n
\t “Phrase  “continuous  service”,  as  contained\t  in
\n\t collective  bargaining agreement, had to be  viewed
\n\t in  light of terms of agreement which provided\t for
\n\t work schedule of eight hours per day for a five-day
\n\t week,\tMonday to Friday, inclusive and,  therefore,
\n\t one  working  regular prescribed  hours  of  labour
\n\t would\tbe  rendering  “continuous  service”  within
\n\t agreement  even though not working on Saturdays  or
\n\t Sundays or more than eight hours in any 24.”
\n     The  above\t two  meanings, among the  several  set\t out
\ntherein,  are in our opinion contextually relevant.  We\t are
\nalso  of the view that a literal interpretation of the\tsaid
\nwords  is  ruled  out  by  the\tcontext,  as  the  preceding
\ndiscussion shows.\n<\/p>\n
     The  counsel  for the University has conceded  that  on
\nseveral occasions
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t369<\/span>
\nprior  to  31.3.1980,  there were gaps of a week  or  so  in
\nissuing\t reappointment\torder on temporary basis.   He\tsays
\nthat these delays were in the nature of ministerial  delays,
\nand  therefore,\t they were condoned but so far\tas  the\t gap
\nbetween 1.4.1980 and 20-7-1980 is concerned he says it is of
\nan  altogether different nature inasmuch as  the  respondent
\nleft this University and joined\t another University.  But as
\nwe  have  stated hereinbefore, para 2 (a)  itself  expressly
\nrecognizes the said eight years’ service having been put  in
\nmore  than  one\t University.  The present  gap\tis  of\tthat
\nnature.\t True it is that it is a bit too long but even so in
\nthe  light  of\tthe circumstance  that\tthe  respondent\t was
\nreappointed on a permanent basis, on the very same post,  in
\nthe very same department, the length of the said break pales
\ninto  insignificance.  We are persuaded to believe that\t the
\nsaid  increments must have been granted taking into  account
\nhis  past  service  for\t a  period  of\tsix  years  in\tthis
\nUniversity as well.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent  has  brought  to\tour  notice  several
\ninstances  where the University has condoned breaks  of\t two
\nmonths\tor more in the case of other teachers.\tWe  do\tnot,
\nhowever,  think it necessary to examine those  cases  except
\ntwo.  One Dr. L.K. Panda was a teacher in the department  of
\nOb.  and  Gyn. in the Institute of Medical Sciences of\tthis
\nUniversity.   He was appointed temporarily in 26.5.1973\t and
\nresigned on 5.2.1975.  He was said to be out of job  between
\n5.2.1975 and 27.4.1975 (for a period of two months 22 days).
\nHe  was\t re-appointed as a lecturer in\tthis  University  on
\ntemporary  basis on 28.4.1975, and on a permanent  basis  on
\n16.10.1978.   The respondent’s case is that  the  University
\nhas condoned the said gap of two months 22 days in his\tcase
\nand if so there is no reason why the gap on three months  20
\ndays in the case of respondent should not be condoned.\t The
\nUniversity has, however, explained in its counter  affidavit
\nthat  no such condonation was made in his case and that\t his
\nservice was counted only from 28.4.1975.  But if his service
\nis counted from 28.4.1975 only, it is significant to notice,
\nhe does not complete eight years service by 15.1.1983  which
\nwas  the  last day of  applying-vide  University  proceeding
\ndated  11\/21 December, 1982.  The other case is of Dr.\tA.M.
\nTripathi  who was a teacher in the department of  Pediatrics
\nin the Institute of Medical Sciences of this University.  He
\nwas  appointed temporarily on 11.5.1974.  According  to\t the
\nrespondent,   he resigned on 12.8.1975 and  was out  of\t job
\ntill 24.8.1975 when he went to Kabul.  According to him,  he
\nserved at Kabul in a non-teaching capacity from 25.8.1975 to
\n8.4.1976  and  he  was re-appointed as a  lecturer  in\tthis
\nUniversity on temporary basis on 9.4.1976 and made permanent
\non  9.2.1979.\tThe  respondent says  that  the\t entire\t gap
\nbetween 12.8.1975 to 8.4.1976 was condoned by the University
\nfor considering his case under the scheme.  The\t appellant’s
\ncase,  however, is different.  According to  the  appellant-
\nUniversity, he was sent to Kabul on
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    370<\/span>
\ndeputation  and\t that the break\t in  his  service  occurring
\nprior  to  his going to Kabul has never been  condoned.\t  We
\nfind that in the rejoinder-affidavit of the University filed
\nin  this  court, there is a certain mix-up of  the  relevant
\ndates in the case of these two teachers.  Be that as it may,
\nits  case  appears to be  that services of  these  two\twere
\ncounted\t  only from the date of their  re-employment.\tThen
\nthe following significant statement occurs in the rejoinder-
\naffidavit filed in this court:\n<\/p>\n
\t “It is true that by 15.1.1983 he had not  completed
\n\t 8  years of continuous service in the\tsame  cadre.
\n\t However,  in the meanwhile the\t vice-chancellor  as
\n\t also the Executive Council decided that eligibility
\n\t period\t of candidature for appointment to  teaching
\n\t posts under Merit Promotion Scheme be counted as on
\n\t the  date of interview, as per\t existing   practice
\n\t for  regular appointments in view of the fact\tthat
\n\t the   Executive  Council  treats  posts   in\tboth
\n\t categories on a par  with each other.\t Accordingly
\n\t since\tDr.  Tripathi  had  completed  8  years\t  of
\n\t continuous service in the same cadre by the date of
\n\t interview  on\t23.6.1983, he was eligible  and\t was
\n\t selected  by  the  statutory  Selection  Committee.
\n\t Applying   the\t very  same  principal\t which\t was
\n\t approved by the Executive Council, Dr. L.K.  Pandey
\n\t became eligible  and was selected. ”\n<\/p>\n
     In our opinion, the above\tstatement in the  rejoinder-
\naffidavit  filed  by the University is very  revealing.\t  It
\nshows  that  even  though  the said  two  teachers  had\t not
\ncompleted  eight years’ service by the prescribed date\ti.e.
\nby 15.1.1983, the Vice-chancellor and the Executive  Council
\ndecided\t to extend the eligibility period till the  date  of
\ninterview so as to make them eligible for consideration.  We
\nare not suggesting any malafides or any unreasonable conduct
\nto  the\t University.   All that we are saying  is  that\t the
\nUniversity has been passing appropriate orders wherever\t the
\njustice\t of  a\tcase demanded.\tIn  our\t opinion,  the\tsame
\ntreatment ought to have been extended to the  respondent, in
\nall the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     For  the  above  reasons,\tthe  appeal   fails  and  is
\naccordingly dismissed No orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
T.N.A.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    371<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Banaras Hindu University, … vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 780, 1992 SCR (1) 360 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: DR. INDRA PRATAP SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/01\/1992 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. […]<\/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-186756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBanaras Hindu University, ... vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992 - 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\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Banaras Hindu University, ... vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-25T14:43:16+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Banaras Hindu University, … vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-25T14:43:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992\"},\"wordCount\":3403,\"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\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992\",\"name\":\"Banaras Hindu University, ... vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-25T14:43:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Banaras Hindu University, … vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"Banaras Hindu University, ... vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992 - 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\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Banaras Hindu University, ... vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-25T14:43:16+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Banaras Hindu University, … vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992","datePublished":"1992-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-25T14:43:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992"},"wordCount":3403,"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\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992","name":"Banaras Hindu University, ... vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-25T14:43:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banaras-hindu-university-vs-dr-indra-pratap-singh-on-24-january-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Banaras Hindu University, … vs Dr. Indra Pratap Singh on 24 January, 1992"}]},{"@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\/186756","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=186756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}