{"id":187201,"date":"2008-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-21T08:03:52","modified_gmt":"2015-04-21T02:33:52","slug":"shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008<\/div>\n
               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                 Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00631 dated 4-5-2007\n                   Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:           Shri P. Kaladharan\nRespondent:          Ministry of Defence (MoD) AV.\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
       By an application of 20-6-06 Shri P. Kaladharan of Tiruchirapally applied
\nto Shri A. Bandopadhyay, IOFS, CPIO O\/o DDG (AV) Hqrs. Chennai seeking
\nthe following information:\n<\/p>\n
       “1.    I request you to kindly provide the copy of VR rejection
\n              draft approval order of competent authority on the noting
\n              put up by the administration. I will send the required
\n              application fee on hearing from you.<\/p>\n
       2.     Kindly also give the reason as to why I was denied the
\n              pay and allowances including OT on the last day of my
\n              service especially when my VR order itself has been
\n              cancelled.     Kindly refer EFA order no. 762 dated
\n              11.6.2004 and also revised pension has been made w.e.f.
\n              1.6.03. I have done duty on 30.4.97 including OT. And
\n              again since May 1st being a Holiday I was summoned to
\n              admin office on 2.5.97 only and was handed over my VR
\n              rejection letter. As per Pay Slip I have not been paid my
\n              pay and allowance for the above mentioned date. Kindly
\n              inform whether the above payment will be made.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3.     Kindly inform under which authority I was denied my final
\n              claim for TA\/ DA especially when the same has been
\n              accepted and forwarded to CDA Kolkatta by EFA for
\n              passing the same after scrutiny. Kindly let me know the
\n              bill number etc and copy of the rejection letter of CDA.
\n              Kolkatta if, any.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       4.     Arrears of PLB based on revised formula for years-1993-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              94 to 1998-99 for 21 days (piecemeal) has been granted
\n              to all employees of Ordnance Factory who were on
\n              service. This is as per MOD letter no 48 (4)\/98\/D (B&C)
\n              dated 29.09.2000 and OFB letter no. 873\/CC\/A\/A dated
\n              24.7.2000. Kindly inform why I was denied full payment
\n              of these arrears when I was in the strength of EFA till my<\/p>\n
                                       1<\/span>
\n      VR (30.4.97). Hence it was the duty of EFA to claim full
\n     arrears of this PLB.’<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
5.   As per DGOF order handed over through Ordnance
\n     Factory, Trichy I have reported EFA main gate on
\n     13.01.05 FN but I was not allowed to join duty as per the
\n     then General Manager Shri R. Sundaram till 21.01.95. I
\n     was regularly reporting to factory main gate and had sent
\n     fax\/ telex to GM\/ DGOFS Headquarters regularly. On
\n     21.01.95 only I was allowed to join duty. The period from
\n     13.01.95 to 21.01.95 has been declared as leave. The
\n     above period has not been regularized against joining
\n     date or leave for encashment as the time of retirement.
\n     Moreover, GM EFA has granted 8 days casual leave as a
\n     special case to the undersigned. These 8 days leave has
\n     not been readjusted against EL\/HPL\/WOP booked
\n     against my credit so that the above sanction of leave by
\n     GM could not benefit me. Kindly give information with
\n     reason as to why I w as denied the above regularization
\n     of leave for encashment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   The judgement order against OA 629 is reproduced
\n     below:-\n<\/p>\n
     “It is therefore prayed that the Hon. Tribunal may be
\n     pleased to direct      the respondents to count the period
\n     from 1.5.97 to 30.5.03 as qualifying      service       for
\n     pension and other retrial benefits and direct the
\n     respondents to sanction and pay the same with all
\n     consequential benefits and pass such other order or
\n     orders as may be same with all consequential benefits
\n     and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed
\n     fit.” The relief sought by the applicant in this OA has
\n     been granted by hon. CAT Madras.                  Why the
\n     management has not passed any orders for
\n     consequential benefit or not made payments other than
\n     retrial benefits to the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
     So kindly inform whether I am going to get all benefits as
\n     granted to any other NGO or above in any grade retired
\n     on 30.5.03 as per the pay drawn by me at that time
\n     along with cash, kinds or courtesy. Kindly also inform
\n     correctly what are the facility\/ payment other than
\n     terminal benefits paid to an NGO\/GO\/ employee as on
\n     31.5.03 at Engine Factory Avadi.”\n<\/p>\n
                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
            To this he received a response on 28-8-06 from PIO, Shri Stanley
\nCoutinho, Addl. GM for GM with which he enclosed the detailed response
\nsubmitted by him to Shri A. Bandopadhyay as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “The first point raised by Shri S. Kaladharan is reg. the mistake
\n           in the Service Certificate. The said certificate has been verified
\n           and it is confirmed that instead of showing his date of
\n           appointment as 1.1.63, the service certificate shows the
\n           said date as 1.1.68 which is an error.1<\/p>\n
           Secondly, with a view to obtain clarification from the individual,
\n           the undersigned has spoken to him. In the course of discussion,
\n           he stated that the overall performance indicated in the certificate
\n           is not in order. He would like to have a certificate of “Very
\n           Good” up to the date of his actual superannuation. In this
\n           connection, it is stated that the individual had approached the
\n           Hon’ble CAT in OA 296 of 2005 in which he had asked for the
\n           benefits of promotion etc., in consequence of the favourable
\n           decision received by him in OA 629 of 2003. The decision in
\n           this case was also in favour of the individual. This office has
\n           taken up the matter through a W.P. before the Hon’ble High
\n           Court of Madras. Since the matter is now subjudice, it is not in
\n           order to make any amendment in the records.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The individual has also asked for various documents, the
\n           position regarding this is given below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Points           raised\/ Comments of the Factory\ninformation sought\nVR     rejection   draft The notings are available. They are required for\napproach order           supporting our WP. A copy can be provided to the\n<\/pre>\n
                         applicant as and when the decision of the Court
\n                         case is received.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Pay & Allowance for Since the individual was to retire voluntarily w.e.f.
\n30.04.97                 30.4.97 (F\/N) in keeping with the normal VR, Pay &
\n                         Allowance for 30.4.97 were not claimed. PPO was
\n                         accordingly made. Subsequently, in response to
\n                         the Order of CAT counting his services up to the
\n                         normal date of superannuation, his pension was
\n                         calculated from and concluding 30.04.97. Since the
\n                         pension has been calculated from 30.04.97 to
\n                         31.05.93 and beyond, the question of giving pay &
\n                         allowance for 30.04.97 does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
Regarding TA\/DA          The individual has already been informed that the<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n    Highlighted by us<\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span>
\n                           Home Town was known to be Trichy as per the
\n                          service records and his temporary stay at kalian
\n                          could not be entertained for final TA\/DA. In this
\n                          connection he has also been warned vide this office
\n                          letter No. EFA\/A\/ESTT\/059 dated 01.08.98. It is
\n                          also a fact that the individual is now staying at
\n                          Trichy is his own house and claim for TA\/DA to
\n                          Kalyan is thus not justifiable. In addition, it is
\n                          pertinent to mention that the individual had made
\n                          this request a part of the OS No. 629\/03 to which an
\n                          effective reply was given by this office. The Hon’ble
\n                          CAT was pleased to ignore this part of the
\n                          application in its final judgement.\n<\/p>\n
Regarding PLB arrears     Arrears of PLB for 22 days for the year 93-94 to 97-
\nfor 93-94                 98 (Rs. 770\/-) has been granted to the individual
\n                          vide EFA letter No. EFA\/Cash\/DD\/2000 dated
\n                          14.03.01 as per details given below:\n<\/p>\n
                          1993-94 He was not in the strength of EFA till
\n                          21.1.95
\n                          1993-94 (F\/N) but he is eligible for the bonus from
\n                          OFT
\n                          for a total of 5 days OFT has been to do the needful
\n                          requested.\n<\/p>\n
                          1995-96- 5 days- Rs. 416\/-\n<\/p>\n
                          1996-97- 4 days- Rs. 333\/-\n<\/p>\n
                          1997-98- 3 days- Res. 21 (Paid for the one month
\n                          while he was in service)
\n                          1998-99- Nil- As he voluntarily retired on 30.04.97.
\nRegarding joining time    He was released from OFT on 29.06.94 to SAF,
\nbetween his release       Kanpur. He has not joined at SAF Kanpur and
\nfrom Trichy and joining   stayed back on leave and his transfer order was
\nat EFA                    amended to EFA; he joined at EFA on 21.01.95.\n<\/p>\n
                          Service book entry indicates that the period from
\n                          30.0694 to 9.1.95 as leave admissible and period
\n                          from 10.01.95 to 20.01.95 as joining time, and he
\n                          has been taken on strength of EFA w.e.f. 21.01.95.
\n                          His contention with regard to joining time is
\n                          incorrect. However, his claim of having come to
\n                          EFA on 13.01.05 and thereafter daily up to 20.01.05
\n                          and debarred by GM\/EFA from entering the Factory
\n                          is not acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
Consequential Benefits    The benefits was granted to the individual and
\nunder OA No. 629 of       subsequently a compliance report was filed by this
\n2003                      office before the Hon’ble CAT. Hon’ble CAT was
\n                          pleased to order on 24.12.04 as follows: “Since the
\n                          orders of this Tribunal are complied with the<\/p>\n
                                      4<\/span>
\n                              application is closed”.       As such no further
\n                             comments are necessary on the subject.\n<\/p>\n
Finally the individual       All terminal benefits like revised pension, Gratuity,
\nwas asked for all            Commutation were granted to the individual taking
\nterminal benefits paid       his service into account up to 31.05.03. Pension
\nto employees as on           Identity Card was also issued to him on 20.12.05
\n31.05.03.\n<\/p>\n
       Not satisfied with this response, however, Shri Kaladharan moved his
\nfirst appeal before the Appellate Authority, Member (Personnel) OFB, Kolkata
\non 30-9-06. The Member (Personnel) informed him that he is not the 1st
\nAppellate Authority in this case, with his letter of 3-10-06 forwarded the
\napplication to Addl. D.G. OF, AV Hqrs. Avadi, upon which he received orders
\nof Appellate Authority from GM, EFA of 25-11-06 in his point-wise statement
\nas below:\n<\/p>\n
Points             raised\/   Point-wise Reply\ninformation sought in\nappeal dated 13.9.06\nreceived through AV Hq\nletter dated 3.11.06 by\nthe Appellate Authority\non 7.11.06\nParagraph 1: reply not       As all the information asked for has already been\nsatisfying- any payment      furnished, the question of payment of any further\nrequired      may      be    fees does not arise.\nintimated\n<\/pre>\n
Paragraph 2: Corrected  It has been clearly stated that the service certificate
\nCertificate not providedhas been granted to you with reference to the
\n                        period during which you were in active employment
\n                        at EFA and “correction” thereof is not considered
\n                        necessary. We have accepted that the date of
\n                        appointment should read 1.1.63 instead of 1.1.68.
\n                        You were also informed in this connection that both
\n                        the decisions of the Hon’ble CAT in OAs filed by
\n                        you are now under review by the high Court,
\n                        Madras in a Writ Petition. As the service certificate
\n                        does not carry and financial implications, it was
\n                        decided that the correction if any would be issued
\n                        after the finalization of the case pending before the
\n                        Hon’ble High Court of Madras- along with any other
\n                        such modifications as may be ordered by the
\n                        Hon’ble High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Point No. 1&2-denial of This point has already been replied to and the<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span>
\n copies-not    satisfying-   Appellate Authority does not consider it necessary
\nWP     not   numbered;      to interfere with this, as the matter is sub-judice.
\nmistake committed by
\nEFA-duty of rectify in
\nterms of the order of
\nHon’ble CAT
\nPoint No. 3- (TA claim)     The matter has been made amply clear in the PIO’s
\nand its sub paragraphs      letter dated 25.5.2006. No further clarification is
\n1-7                         considered necessary.\n<\/p>\n
                            However in your own interest you may refer to SR
\n                            147 which clearly stipulates the element of
\n                            “settlement” and not a mere visits or sojourn at any
\n                            place- as seen in your case. The fact that you are
\n                            drawing your pension from Trichy is clearly an
\n                            indication that you have settled in Trichy and had no
\n                            such intentions with reference to kalian- which in
\n                            your own words is your daughter’s residence. We
\n                            have no comments on the enclosed extract from
\n                            some publication of HVF Avadi.\n<\/p>\n
Point    No.4:     Non-     PLP is not a term understood in this organisation.
\npayment     of     PLP      However, the position regarding PL Bonus has
\nArrears.                    been communicated to you. This is being reiterated
\n                            below:\n<\/p>\n
                            Arrears of PLB for 22 days for the year 93-94 to 97-
\n                            98 (Rs. 770\/-) has been granted to you vide EFA
\n                            letter No. EFA\/Cash\/DD\/2000 dated 14.03.01 as
\n                            per details given below:\n<\/p>\n
                            1995-96 -5 days – Rs. 416\/-\n<\/p>\n
                            1996-97 -4 days – Rs. 333\/-\n<\/p>\n
                            1997-98 -3 days -Rs. 21\/- (Paid for the one month
\n                            while you were in service)
\n                            1998-99- Nil-As you voluntarily retired on 30.04.97.
\n                            1993-95: You were not on the strength of EP till
\n                            21.01.95 (F\/N) but as you were eligible for bonus
\n                            from OFT for a total of 5days, OFT has been
\n                            requested to do the needful.\n<\/p>\n
Regularisation of leave     The period of leave referred to is confusing. From
\nwrongly adjusted and        the contents of this paragraph it appears that there
\nencashment of leave.        is some period of absence around the date of
\n                            joining in EFA in the month of January 1995. The
\n                            enclosed copy refers to a sanction as a special
\n                            case of 12 days of absence in the year 1997. The
\n                            entitlement of Casual Leave from the date of
\n                            implementation of the recommendations of the Vth
\n                            Central Pay Commission is 8 days, and the General<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span>
\n                             Manger could not have sanctioned 12 days to the
\n                            applicant under any circumstances. Secondly, the
\n                            format submitted by the individual is not the proper
\n                            leave application.\n<\/p>\n
                            The position intimated to you by the PIO is
\n                            confirmed and needs no interference by the
\n                            appellate authority especially in the absence of any
\n                            valid proof.\n<\/p>\n
Point 6 to pass orders Since the matter is now sub-judice, the same will be
\nfor         consequential acted upon based on the order of the Court when
\nbenefits- in terms of delivered.\n<\/p>\n
judgement order of
\nHon’ble Cat in OS No. You have also alleged that the respondents are
\n629\/03.                     “miss leading” the Hon’ble CAT. You are requested
\n                            to submit proper evidence in this regard for action
\n                            as deemed fit.\n<\/p>\n
Last Point: Information Your request for consequential (Retrial) benefits
\nregarding grant of all extended to an NGO has also been answered. You
\nretrial (Retrial?) benefits are requested to point out specifically which
\n                            benefits being rightfully due to you have been
\n                            denied.\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant Shri Kaladharan has moved second appeal before us with the
\nfollowing prayer:\n<\/p>\n
       “Correct information as per RTI Act 2005 and copies of
\n       records as requested vide page 9 and refusal vide page\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       10.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The appeal was heard through videoconference on 14-7-08.             The
\nfollowing are present at NIC Studio, Chennai :\n<\/p>\n
       Respondents
\n       Shri Stanley Coutinho, PIO.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Shri Ramamurthy, Assistant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Shri Kaladharan, who was contacted on the telephone, expressed his
\ninability to be present because of his ill-health.\n<\/p>\n
       We find that there has been a complete failure in adhering to time limits
\nmandated by the law. The original application was received on 20-6-06 at
\nDDG, AV Hqrs. Avadi, Chennai. Although Shri Stanley Coutinho had replied
\nto this on 13-7-06 to Shri A. Bandopadhyay, DDG, AV Group, AV Hqrs. no
\ncopy was sent to appellant with the result that he received a response only<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span>
\n through Shri Coutinho’s letter of 25-8-06. Shri Coutinho submitted that this
\nwas because the letter from Shri Bandopadhyay forwarding the application to
\nhim asked only for a report from him, which he did vide letter of 13-7-06 i.e.
\nwell within the time limit prescribed. This appears to have remained pending
\nwith Shri Bandopadhyay till 22-8-06, the date on which Shri Coutinho received
\nthe order of Shri Bandopadhyay to forward this to appellant Shri Kaladharan.
\nShri Bandopadhyay has, therefore, rendered himself liable to penalty @ Rs.
\n250\/- a day from 20-7-06 when the information became due to 22-8-06 when
\nhe issued directions to Shri Coutinho to send a response to appellant Shri
\nKaladharan.\n<\/p>\n
      On the question of substantive information sought Shri Coutinho
\nsubmitted that all the information sought had, in fact, been provided. However,
\nhe agreed that as submitted in Shri Kaladharan’s first appeal the error
\nconfirmed in his own letter of 13-7-06 showing his date of appointment as 1-1-
\n1963 against the service certificate which showed the date as 1-1-1968, which
\nis admittedly an error, no rectification has been done.         Shri Coutinho
\nsubmitted that this was because the service certificate is now before the High
\nCourt and therefore, tampering with that certificate will prejudice the case
\nbeing contested by the Engine Factory in that Hon’ble Court.\n<\/p>\n
                             DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
The issues before us are two:\n<\/p>\n
      1)      Question of delay in response to the application, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2)      Any further information that remains to be provided;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On issue No.1 it is admitted that there has been a delay. We have also
\nidentified that the delay has occurred at the level of Shri A. Bandopadhyay,
\nDDG, AV Hqrs.      However, it is learnt that Shri Bandopadhyay has since
\nretired from service and therefore, any penalty will be infructuous. Although,<\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span>
\n no penalty is, therefore, imposed, AV Hqrs. is cautioned to streamline the
\nservicing of RTI applications so as to ensure that such a delay does not
\nrecur.\n<\/p>\n
         On issue No.2, since it is admitted by the Public Authority that there
\nhas been an error in recording of date of appointment in the service certificate,
\nShri Coutinho will issue a letter of addendum with regard to this error
\nwithin one week of the date of issue of this decision notice under
\nintimation to appellant Shri P. Kaladharan.\n<\/p>\n
         The appeal is thus partly allowed. Announced in the hearing. Notice of
\nthis decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n14-7-2008<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n14-7-2008<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00631 dated 4-5-2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri P. Kaladharan Respondent: Ministry of Defence (MoD) AV. FACTS By an application of 20-6-06 Shri P. Kaladharan of Tiruchirapally applied to […]<\/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":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008 - 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\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-21T02:33:52+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-21T02:33:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2799,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-21T02:33:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008 - 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\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-21T02:33:52+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-21T02:33:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008"},"wordCount":2799,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008","name":"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-21T02:33:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-kaladharan-vs-ministry-of-defence-mod-av-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri P. Kaladharan vs Ministry Of Defence (Mod) Av on 14 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/187201","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=187201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}