{"id":187100,"date":"2002-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002"},"modified":"2016-06-06T06:07:26","modified_gmt":"2016-06-06T00:37:26","slug":"k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 01\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ.\n\nWrit Petition No.19382 of 2001\nand\nW.P.M.No.28506 of 2001\n\nK. Paramaraj.              ..                 Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.General Manager,\n  Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,\n  Madruai Division-IV,\n  Dindigul.\n\n2.The Chairman,\n  Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,\n  Ezhilagam,Chepauk,\n  Chennai-600 005.         ..                Respondents\n\n        Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\nfor the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and as stated therein.\n\n!For Petitioner -- Mr.K.Chandru,\n                  Senior Counsel, for\n                  Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali.\n\n^For Respondents -- Mr.R.P.Kabilan.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Writ  petition  praying  to  issue  a  Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus<br \/>\ncalling for the records relating to the order in reference SATHU:A2:1167 dated<br \/>\n1-11-2001 passed  by  the  respondent,  quash  the  same  and  to  direct  the<br \/>\nrespondents   to   reinstate  the  petitioner  as  Driver  in  the  respondent<br \/>\nCorporation with all monetary benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.In the  affidavit  filed  in  support  of  the  writ  petition,  the<br \/>\npetitioner  would submit that he was appointed as driver in the erstwhile Rani<br \/>\nMangammal Transport Corporation Ltd., (for short called  as  &#8216;RMTC  Ltd.&#8217;)  on<br \/>\ndaily  wages  basis with effects from 25-07-1988 subject to the conditions (i)<br \/>\nthat he would be paid a sum of Rs.25\/- per day; (2) that he was liable  to  be<br \/>\nstopped  at  any  time  without  notice,  without any compensation and without<br \/>\nassigning any reason and (3) that this daily paid engagement  on  any  account<br \/>\nshall  not  confer  on  any  right  for  continuance  of  service  for regular<br \/>\nappointment in the corporation; that his  appointment  was  confirmed  in  the<br \/>\nGeneral  Manager&#8217;s  proceedings  dated  7-9-1989  as  driver with effects from<br \/>\n8-9-1989 on condition (a) that  he  would  be  retired  from  service  on  his<br \/>\ncompletion of 58 years of age; (b) that he was liable to be transferred to any<br \/>\nplace  within  the  organisation; (c) that he should observe all the rules and<br \/>\nregulations  and  standing  orders  of  the  Corporation;  (d)that  when   any<br \/>\ninformation  furnished  by him was found to be incorrect or not true, he would<br \/>\nbe liable for dismissal and such further action; (e) that he shall not  engage<br \/>\nhimself  in any outside work and (f) that he shall not apply for any other job<br \/>\noutside while in service without prior written permission from the management.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.The further averments of the writ petition are that  he  was  issued<br \/>\nwith a  charge memo dated 2-4-1991 containing the following charges:  (i) that<br \/>\nin violation of standing order No.16(43) a false certificate has been produced<br \/>\nstating that he passed VIII Standard in the  Panchayat  Union  Middle  School,<br \/>\nErumai  Naickenpatti,  at  the time of appointment as driver; and (ii) without<br \/>\nstudying VIII Standard, he made a false representation and joined as driver in<br \/>\nviolation of Standing Order No.16(5) and cheated the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  petitioner  would  further  submit  that  he  submitted  his<br \/>\nexplanation  in  May  1991  denying  the charges, but the management appointed<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer and  ordered  departmental  enquiry  by  proceedings  dated  1<br \/>\n1-08-1991;  that  the  Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his<br \/>\nreport, based on which the General Manager, RMTC Ltd.  on  7-9-1992  issued  a<br \/>\nsecond  show  cause notice and directed him to file objections for the enquiry<br \/>\nreport;  that  the  petitioner  submitted  his  representation,  taking   into<br \/>\nconsideration of which no step was taken and subsequently the said Corporation<br \/>\nwas  renamed as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., and he is working<br \/>\nunder the first respondent now.  But after a period of nine years,  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent  has  now issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to<br \/>\nshow cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service for  the  charges<br \/>\nframed  against  him;  that  in  the  meantime,  he  completed  his SSLC; that<br \/>\naggrieved, the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition  on<br \/>\ncertain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the first<br \/>\nrespondent,  besides  admitting   the   petitioner&#8217;s   appointment   and   the<br \/>\nconfirmation of the services, would further submit that on verification of the<br \/>\ncertificates  produced  by  way of sending the same to the school authorities,<br \/>\nthe Chief Educational Officer, Madurai in his letter dated 6-3-1993  forwarded<br \/>\nthe  remarks  that  no such certificate had been issued by the Panchayat Union<br \/>\nMiddle School,Erumai Nayakenpatti, based on which the charge memo  was  issued<br \/>\non   2-4-1991   for   the  misconduct  as  per  the  Standing  Orders  of  the<br \/>\nrespondent\u2014Corporation under Clause 16(v); that the enquiry was  conducted  in<br \/>\nconsonance  with the principles of natural justice and after detailed enquiry;<br \/>\nbased on the findings on the charges levelled  against  the  petitioner  which<br \/>\nwere  held  proved,  a show cause notice dated 7-9-1992 was issued calling for<br \/>\nhis explanation, as to why his services should not  be  terminated;  that  the<br \/>\ndetailed  explanation  submitted  by  the  petitioner  was  found  to  be  not<br \/>\nsatisfactory and hence the matter was placed before the  General  Manager  for<br \/>\nhis   appropriate  action;  that  in  the  mean  while,  the  petitioner  made<br \/>\nrepresentation on 13-01-1994 stating that he had passed three subjects in SSLC<br \/>\nin October, 1993 and further on 16-07-1 998 submitted that he had  passed  the<br \/>\nremaining  two  subjects  in the SSLC examination during April, 1998 and hence<br \/>\nthe matter was placed before the  Management  for  further  action  and  since<br \/>\naction  could not be taken against the petitioner for some reason or other and<br \/>\nultimate decision was taken by the Management to dispense with the services of<br \/>\nthe petitioner and hence issuing the show  cause  notice  dated  31-08-2001  ,<br \/>\nexplanation was  called for.  The counter affidavit would lay emphasis stating<br \/>\nthat the reason for the delay in passing the final orders on the  enquiry  are<br \/>\nattributable  only to the petitioner and therefore the management was not in a<br \/>\nposition to decide it immediately and the delay in passing  the  final  orders<br \/>\nwould  not  in  any manner affect the writ petitioner or prejudice his rights.<br \/>\nOn such grounds the first respondent would pray  to  dismiss  the  above  writ<br \/>\npetition with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   During  arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof the petitioner, besides relying on the averments already brought  forth  in<br \/>\nthe  writ  petition,  would particularly focus his attention on the nine years<br \/>\ndelay caused on the part of the respondents to issue the impugned  show  cause<br \/>\nnotice  and  would  ascertain  that  no proper reason has been assigned in the<br \/>\ncounter filed by the first respondent and  would  lay  emphasis  on  the  sole<br \/>\nground,  besides  on the other grounds brought forth in the writ petition, the<br \/>\nwrit petition will have to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  In reply to the above,  what  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on<br \/>\nbehalf  of the respondents would say is that proper reasons have been assigned<br \/>\nfor the delay and it is a matter based on a disciplinary enquiry and that  the<br \/>\npetitioner  himself  was  responsible  for  the  delay and hence would seek to<br \/>\ndismiss the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner would  cite<br \/>\na  number  of  judgments  for  the inordinate delay in initiating departmental<br \/>\nproceedings or carrying on the same, they  being  the  judgments  respectively<br \/>\nreported as hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i) COMMISSIONER.  SANKARAPURAM  PANCHAYAT  UNION ETC.  Vs.  S.A.ABDUL<br \/>\nWAHAB AND OTHERS (1996 Writ L.R.  677), wherein, it is held<br \/>\n        &#8220;It is now well established that if there is unnecessary,  unexplained<br \/>\nand  unjustifiably  long delay in initiating departmental proceedings, it will<br \/>\nresult in causing great prejudice to the person against whom such a proceeding<br \/>\nis initiated and it will be a ground for quashing the proceedings.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii) G.N.KHAN Vs.  D.C.  OF POLICE, WEST  ZONE,  HYDERABAD  (A.P.Admn.<br \/>\nTribunal :    Hyderabad)(1989(2) Services Law Reporter, 552), wherein, for the<br \/>\ndelay of more than five years in holding departmental proceedings, the  Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh  Administrative  Tribunal, Hyderabad, has held that the delay is fatal<br \/>\nto the departmental proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iii) STATE OF A.P.  Vs.  N.RADHAKISHAN  (1998  SCC  (L  &amp;  S)  1044),<br \/>\nwherein  it  is  held  that unexplained delay in conclusion of the proceedings<br \/>\nitself is an indication of prejudice caused to the employee, thereby  quashing<br \/>\nthe  disciplinary  proceedings  in  the  said case, further directing that the<br \/>\nemployee should be promoted in accordance with the recommendations of DPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.In consideration of the facts pleaded by parties, having  regard  to<br \/>\nthe  materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both,<br \/>\nwhat comes to be known is that the case in  hand  is  one  of  dismissal  from<br \/>\nservice for mis-conduct which has been resorted to admittedly nine years after<br \/>\nthe  act  complained  of and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.<br \/>\nIn fact, the petitioner was employed on daily wages basis on 25-07-1988, which<br \/>\ncame to be confirmed on 8-9 -1989.  The charge memo is to the effect  that  in<br \/>\nviolation  of  the  standing  order,  a false educational certificate had been<br \/>\nproduced by the petitioner to the effect that he passed VIII standard from the<br \/>\nPanchayat Union Middle School, Erumai Naickenpatti, and joined  as  driver  in<br \/>\nviolation of the standing order and cheating the corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   It  further comes to be known that though a departmental enquiry<br \/>\nhad been conducted as early as on<br \/>\n11-08-1991, the second show cause notice has been issued on 31-08-200 1,  that<br \/>\nis  exactly  after ten years and the order of dismissal has been passed as per<br \/>\nthe impugned order dated 1-11-2001.  No mention need be  necessary  that  this<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceeding  is  tainted  with  the  delay of a decade.  It is not<br \/>\nordinarily that any delay so  caused  would  either  cause  prejudice  to  the<br \/>\npetitioner or  the  proceeding would get vitiated on account of delay.  If the<br \/>\ndelay has been caused because of some acts done by the petitioner  himself  or<br \/>\nunder  unavoidable circumstances which are clearly explained, the delay is not<br \/>\nto affect  either  the  proceeding  or  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by  the<br \/>\nauthorities concerned.    But  it  is  only  an  unexplained  delay  which  is<br \/>\nsusceptible to cause prejudice and would give way for the whole proceeding  to<br \/>\nget  vitiated  and hence it is paramount on the part of this Court to consider<br \/>\nwhether the delay caused in the case in hand is properly explained and whether<br \/>\nthe reasons assigned therefor are justifiable.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.The delay is ten years.  The only reason that is  assigned  in  the<br \/>\ncounter  affidavit  filed on the part of the first respondent for causing such<br \/>\ninordinate delay is that the petitioner gave further  representation  for  the<br \/>\nconsideration of   which,  such  long  delay  had  become  inevitable.    This<br \/>\nexplanation cannot at all be taken as either valid or acceptable  for  warding<br \/>\noff  the  delay  of  ten years in the domestic proceeding and it could only be<br \/>\nheld that no proper or tangible reason or explanation has been offered on  the<br \/>\npart  of  the respondents for such an inordinate delay to have occurred in the<br \/>\nmatter of disciplinary  proceedings  initiated  against  the  petitioner.    A<br \/>\ncareful perusal of the materials placed on record would depict the sorry state<br \/>\nof  affairs  which have taken place to arrive at a decision in the case of the<br \/>\npetitioner having been indicated to have  joined  the  services  cheating  the<br \/>\ncorporation  on  production  of a false certificate, and therefore it is a fit<br \/>\ncase in which, as held not only by the Division Bench of this Court,  but  the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Apex Court, great prejudice would be caused to the person against whom<br \/>\nthe  departmental  proceedings  were instituted if an order is passed after an<br \/>\ninordinate and unexplained delay.  If the norms held by the Division Bench and<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court, which are squarely applicable to the facts in the case<br \/>\non hand are to be given effect to, this Court is left with no choice,  but  to<br \/>\narrive  at  the  only  conclusion  that  could  be  arrived at in quashing the<br \/>\nimpugned order of dismissal dated 1-11-2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In result, the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed.<br \/>\n        The impugned order dated 1-11-2001 passed by the first  respondent  as<br \/>\nper the proceedings in Reference SATHU:A2:1167 is hereby quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Consequently, W.M.P.No.28506 of 2001 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        For  reinstatement  with  all monetary benefits the time granted is 30<br \/>\ndays from the date of receipt of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index-Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet-Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.General Manager,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,<br \/>\nMadruai Division-IV,<br \/>\nDindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Chairman,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,<br \/>\nEzhilagam,Chepauk,<br \/>\nChennai-600 005.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sk\/-\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01\/10\/2002 CORAM The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ. Writ Petition No.19382 of 2001 and W.P.M.No.28506 of 2001 K. Paramaraj. .. Petitioner -Vs- 1.General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madruai Division-IV, Dindigul. 2.The Chairman, Tamil [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-06T00:37:26+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-06T00:37:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1973,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002\",\"name\":\"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-06T00:37:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-06T00:37:26+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-06T00:37:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002"},"wordCount":1973,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002","name":"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-06T00:37:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-paramaraj-vs-general-manager-on-1-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Paramaraj vs General Manager on 1 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/187100","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=187100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}