{"id":189460,"date":"2008-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-11T19:29:50","modified_gmt":"2016-10-11T13:59:50","slug":"a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 20825 of 2008(D)\n\n\n1. A.VIDHYADHARAN , ANIYIL HOUSE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)\n\n3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :17\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         P.N.RAVINDRAN, J\n                       -----------------------------\n                 W.P.(C) NO:20825 of 2008\n                       -----------------------------\n            Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The petitioner was an       Assistant Executive Engineer in the<\/p>\n<p>Kerala State Electricity Board. During the period from 31-5-2003 to<\/p>\n<p>23-7-2005, he was the Assistant Engineer in charge of Electrical<\/p>\n<p>Section, Aluva Town. Under the Electrical Section, Aluva Town there<\/p>\n<p>are 17000 consumers including 600 industrial consumers out of whom<\/p>\n<p>27 are HT consumers. There is also an industrial estate in South<\/p>\n<p>Vazhakulam which falls within Electrical Section, Aluva Town. The<\/p>\n<p>pleadings disclose that in the Electrical Section, Aluva Town 11 K.V<\/p>\n<p>line has been drawn for a length of 60 kms and there are 110<\/p>\n<p>transformers. On 11-5-2005, the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS for<\/p>\n<p>short) of the Kerala State Electricity Board inspected the premises of<\/p>\n<p>M\/s.Aluva Techno Rubbers, a HT consumer. The inspection lasted<\/p>\n<p>from 9 AM to 10 PM. The petitioner was present through out the<\/p>\n<p>inspection. On inspection, it was found that the said consumer had<\/p>\n<p>committed theft of electrical energy by providing a contractor in the<\/p>\n<p>under ground cable between the current transformer\/power<\/p>\n<p>transformer and the meter box. This was detected after 7 hours of<\/p>\n<p>inspection and that too after verifying the power supply in a similar<\/p>\n<p>factory situate within the limits of the Electrical Section at<\/p>\n<p>Kizhakkambalam.\n<\/p>\n<p>wpc:20825 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      2.    Pursuant thereto, Ext.P1 memo dated 23-7-2005 was issued<\/p>\n<p>by the Deputy Chief Engineer alleging that the petitioner did not take<\/p>\n<p>steps to detect the theft of electrical energy by M\/s.Aluva Techno<\/p>\n<p>Rubbers, that thereby he failed to carry out his official duty and that his<\/p>\n<p>action amounts to dereliction of duty resulting in revenue loss to the<\/p>\n<p>Board.    The petitioner was    also called upon to show cause why<\/p>\n<p>departmental action should not be taken against him as per the Kerala<\/p>\n<p>State Electricity Board Employees Classification, Control and Appeal<\/p>\n<p>Regulations, 1969.     On receipt of Ext.P1 memo of charges, the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply pointing out that as theft was<\/p>\n<p>committed by laying an under ground cable and as there was no<\/p>\n<p>external manifestation of any attempt to commit theft of energy, the<\/p>\n<p>theft of energy went unnoticed. He also pointed out that there was no<\/p>\n<p>sudden increase or decrease in the consumption pattern and therefore<\/p>\n<p>he did not suspect any tampering with the electrical installation. He<\/p>\n<p>also pointed out that there was no tampering with the meter or in the<\/p>\n<p>transformer and therefore he had no reason to suspect theft of energy.<\/p>\n<p>      3.    After Ext.P1 memo was issued, the petitioner was regularly<\/p>\n<p>promoted to the category of Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter,<\/p>\n<p>the files relating to the departmental action were transferred by the<\/p>\n<p>third respondent to the second respondent, the competent disciplinary<\/p>\n<p>authority. Along with the files, the third respondent had sent Ext.P3<\/p>\n<p>letter to the second respondent inter alia stating that the petitioner and<\/p>\n<p>wpc:20825 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the Sub-Engineer have worked under him for a considerable long<\/p>\n<p>period, that they were loyal and obedient and that their work and<\/p>\n<p>character were satisfactory. However the second respondent Chief<\/p>\n<p>Engineer proceed to issue Ext.P4 memo of charges dated 26-10-2006<\/p>\n<p>to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply. However there was no<\/p>\n<p>progress in the departmental enquiry and while matters stood thus, the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner retired from service on 31-12-2007 on attaining the age of<\/p>\n<p>superannuation.\n<\/p>\n<p>       4.  After the petitioner retired from service, the Assistant<\/p>\n<p>Executive Engineer in charge of Electrical Division Aluva issued Ext.P6<\/p>\n<p>Non Liability Certificate dated 16-2-2008 certifying that no liability is<\/p>\n<p>outstanding against the petitioner while he was working in the<\/p>\n<p>Electrical Division at Aluva and that the said certificate is issued<\/p>\n<p>subject to the finalisation of the departmental action initiated as per<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P4.   The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P7 representation<\/p>\n<p>dated 21-2-2008 to the second respondent requesting for disbursement<\/p>\n<p>of terminal benefits. Thereafter, the second respondent sent Ext.P8<\/p>\n<p>letter dated 2-4-2008 to the Executive Engineer Electrical Division,<\/p>\n<p>Aluva, sanctioning a minimum pension of Rs.1275\/- to the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>and family pension of 1275\/-+Dearness Relief to his wife in the event of<\/p>\n<p>his death. All other pensionary benefits were withheld for want of<\/p>\n<p>vigilance clearance certificate.  The petitioner thereupon submitted<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P9 representation dated 18-6-2008 seeking disbursement of the<\/p>\n<p>wpc:20825 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>terminal benefits in full. In Ext.P9 he also pointed out that<\/p>\n<p>Sri.Parameswaran Nair, the Sub Engineer of Electrical Section, Aluva<\/p>\n<p>Town who was also proceeded against in relation to the same incident,<\/p>\n<p>was later promoted as Assistant Engineer and given all terminal<\/p>\n<p>benefits after his retirement from service on 31-5-2006. This writ<\/p>\n<p>petition was thereafter filed seeking the following reliefs:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     i)    issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate<br \/>\n           writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1<br \/>\n           and 2 to finalise the proceedings initiated on the<br \/>\n           basis of Ext.P1 and     P4 on the basis of Ext.P2, P3<br \/>\n           and P5 and release the full pension and all<br \/>\n           terminal benefits with interest to the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     ii)   issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order,<br \/>\n           direction directing the respondent to release the full<br \/>\n           pension and to pay all terminal benefits to the<br \/>\n           petitioner with interest from 1-1-2008 till the date<br \/>\n           of payment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending<\/p>\n<p>inter alia that disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner for<\/p>\n<p>lack of supervision. Reference is made to the surprise inspection<\/p>\n<p>conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad in the premises of M\/s.Aluva<\/p>\n<p>Techno Rubbers, a consumer of the Board. The counter affidavit<\/p>\n<p>proceeds to state that following the surprise inspection an invoice for<\/p>\n<p>Rs.87,81,097\/- was issued to the consumer, that the consumer<\/p>\n<p>thereupon filed W.P(C) No. 24397 of 2007 in this Court, that by virtue<\/p>\n<p>of the interim order passed in the said writ petition and on the appeal<\/p>\n<p>filed by the consumer before the Appellate Authority, the consumer has<\/p>\n<p>wpc:20825 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>remitted the sum of Rs.53,47,055\/-, that the sum of Rs.31,94,110\/- is<\/p>\n<p>still due from the consumer, that the disciplinary action against the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner has not so far been finalised and that as the departmental<\/p>\n<p>action is pending, minimum pension alone was sanctioned to him. The<\/p>\n<p>respondents contend that under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service<\/p>\n<p>Rules they are entitled to recover from the petitioner, the pecuniary<\/p>\n<p>loss caused to the Board and that as the petitioner is being proceeded<\/p>\n<p>against for lack of supervision, his pensionary benefits cannot be<\/p>\n<p>disbursed before the departmental action is finalised.<\/p>\n<p>      6. From the materials on record that it is evident that the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner who was the Assistant Engineer and his subordinate<\/p>\n<p>Shri.Paramesaran Nair who was the Sub Engineer, were proceeded<\/p>\n<p>against after theft of electrical energy in the premises of Aluva Techno<\/p>\n<p>Rubbers was detected. Both of them were also promoted to the next<\/p>\n<p>higher posts. Sri.Parameswaran Nair was promoted from the category<\/p>\n<p>of Sub Engineer to the category of Assistant Engineer and the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner was promoted to the category of Assistant Executive<\/p>\n<p>Engineer. Sri.Parameswaran Nair, retired from service on 31-5-2006<\/p>\n<p>on attaining the age of superannuation. Though departmental action<\/p>\n<p>was pending against him and a memo similar to Ext.P1 had been issued<\/p>\n<p>to him also in the year 2005, on his retirement, the terminal benefits<\/p>\n<p>were disbursed in full. The stand now taken by the Board is that as the<\/p>\n<p>Sub Engineer who was later promoted as Assistant Engineer retired<\/p>\n<p>wpc:20825 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>from service on 31-5-2006, it was not possible to continue the<\/p>\n<p>departmental action against him and therefore his terminal benefits<\/p>\n<p>were fully disbursed. However, in the case of the petitioner, the stand<\/p>\n<p>taken by the Board is that since the departmental action is pending, the<\/p>\n<p>terminal benefits cannot be disbursed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7. The materials on record disclose that it was the Sub Engineer<\/p>\n<p>who was the person immediately concerned with the reading of the<\/p>\n<p>meter and periodical inspection of the installation. Though the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner was not bound to take the meter reading he had a duty to<\/p>\n<p>inspect the installation.  According to the petitioner there were no<\/p>\n<p>visible signs of tampering with the meter or the transformer and there<\/p>\n<p>was also no sudden decrease or increase in the consumption of energy.<\/p>\n<p>He has also stated that the Board is not equipped to detect tampering<\/p>\n<p>made under ground and that it was after 7 hours of intensive search<\/p>\n<p>that theft of energy through an under ground cable was detected. In<\/p>\n<p>these circumstances, the petitioner submits that he cannot be said to<\/p>\n<p>be negligent in the discharge of his duties. The petitioner also submits<\/p>\n<p>that if pensionary benefits can be disbursed to the Sub Engineer who<\/p>\n<p>was the man in charge of the meter reading and inspection of the<\/p>\n<p>installation, there is no reason why the petitioner who is a superior<\/p>\n<p>officer, should be denied the same. If as contended by the Board, there<\/p>\n<p>was negligence in the discharge of duties on the part of the Sub<\/p>\n<p>Engineer and the Assistant Engineer, I find no merit in the stand taken<\/p>\n<p>wpc:20825 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>by the respondents that the terminal benefits were disbursed to the<\/p>\n<p>Sub Engineer, since the departmental enquiry could not be continued<\/p>\n<p>against him after his retirement. Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR applies<\/p>\n<p>to Sub Engineers and Assistant Engineers. In the case of the Sub<\/p>\n<p>Engineer, the Board decided not to recover any portion of the<\/p>\n<p>pecuniary loss arising out of the theft of electrical energy. However in<\/p>\n<p>the case of the petitioner the stand taken by the Board is that his<\/p>\n<p>pensionary benefits cannot be sanctioned or disbursed until the<\/p>\n<p>departmental action is finalised.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8.    From the materials on record it is evident that the stand<\/p>\n<p>taken by the Board is arbitrary. The Board has no case that in the<\/p>\n<p>normal course of inspection the theft could have been detected. The<\/p>\n<p>Board has not denied the positive averment made by the petitioner that<\/p>\n<p>the theft could be detected only after 7 hours of intensive search and<\/p>\n<p>that theft was committed by laying an under ground cable. In these<\/p>\n<p>circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in<\/p>\n<p>the stand taken by the Board that there was negligence on the part of<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner in detecting the theft of energy. The Board also does not<\/p>\n<p>dispute, the averment made by the petitioner that the Board is not<\/p>\n<p>equipped to detect theft of energy through under ground cables and<\/p>\n<p>that theft of energy could have been detected only by digging up<\/p>\n<p>premises through which the under ground cable is laid. Further it is<\/p>\n<p>now conceded by the Board that the consumer has paid the sum of<\/p>\n<p>wpc:20825 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Rs.53,47,055\/- and that the writ petition filed by the consumer<\/p>\n<p>challenging the demand made by the Board is pending in this Court.<\/p>\n<p>       Having regard to the facts and circumstance set out above, I am<\/p>\n<p>persuaded to take the view that the stand taken by the Board in Ext.P8<\/p>\n<p>is not tenable. In the result, I dispose of the writ petition with a<\/p>\n<p>direction to the respondents to fix the terminal benefits payable to the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner and disburse the same within four months from today.<\/p>\n<p>                                     P.N.RAVINDRAN,<br \/>\n                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>bps<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 20825 of 2008(D) 1. A.VIDHYADHARAN , ANIYIL HOUSE &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD &#8230; Respondent 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER For Petitioner :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN For Respondent [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008 - 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\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-11T13:59:50+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\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-11T13:59:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1874,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008\",\"name\":\"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-11T13:59:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 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":"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008 - 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\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-11T13:59:50+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\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-11T13:59:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008"},"wordCount":1874,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008","name":"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-11T13:59:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vidhyadharan-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Vidhyadharan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 December, 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\/189460","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=189460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}