{"id":198449,"date":"1995-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995"},"modified":"2017-05-14T07:15:59","modified_gmt":"2017-05-14T01:45:59","slug":"joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995","title":{"rendered":"Joint Action Councilof Service &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Joint Action Councilof Service &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC  (7) 256, \t  JT 1995 (9)\t142<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H B.L.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Hansaria B.L. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nJOINT ACTION COUNCILOF SERVICE DOCTORSORGANIZATIONS ETC.ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/12\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\nBENCH:\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (7) 256\t  JT 1995 (9)\t142\n 1995 SCALE  (7)224\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nHANSARIA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The petitioner  is basically  an association of Service<br \/>\nDoctors who  are about 10,000 in number, of whom about 4,500<br \/>\nare members  of Central\t Health\t Service.  This\t Service  is<br \/>\ndivided into  four sub-cadres  : (1)  General  Duty  Medical<br \/>\nOfficers;  (2)\t Specialist  non-teaching;   (3)  Specialist<br \/>\nteaching and (4) Public Health.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The Service Doctors have been agitating, soon after the<br \/>\nrecommendations of  the IVth Central Pay Commission in 1986,<br \/>\nabout  cadre  review.  To  give\t teeth\tto  the\t agitational<br \/>\nprogramme,  a\tJoint  Action  Council\tof  Service  Doctors<br \/>\nOrganizations was  formed,  which  body\t is  the  petitioner<br \/>\nherein. A  delegation of  this body  had gone  on indefinite<br \/>\nstrike in  July 1987,  after they felt dissatisfied with the<br \/>\nworking etc., of the High Power Committee which had been set<br \/>\nup in  the wake of the unsatisfactory recommendations of the<br \/>\nIVth  Pay   Commission.\t A  package  of\t benefits  was\tthen<br \/>\nannounced by the Health Ministry which included some interim<br \/>\nreliefs. As  these benefits  were not  implemented,  further<br \/>\nagitation was  launched, which\tended  in  a  Memorandum  of<br \/>\nsettlement of  21.8.1989. One of the terms of the settlement<br \/>\nwas setting up of a high power committee, which was notified<br \/>\nin  February,  1990.  Constitution  of\tthis  Committee\t was<br \/>\nchanged in  May,  1990.\t Shri  R.K.  Tikoo,  Secretary\t(Co-<br \/>\nordination)  in\t  the  Cabinet\tSecretariat,  was  made\t the<br \/>\nChairman and the terms of the reference were approved by the<br \/>\nCabinet.  The\tCommittee  deliberated\t on  the  terms\t and<br \/>\nsubmitted its report on 31st October, 1990. The present writ<br \/>\npetition was filed on 3rd April, 1991 as the recommendations<br \/>\nhad not been fully implemented.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   The grievance  of the  petitioner is that, not to speak<br \/>\nof not\timplementing all  the recommendations  of the  Tikoo<br \/>\nCommittee, some\t of the terms incorporated in the Memorandum<br \/>\nof  Settlement\t are  yet  to  be  fully  implemented.\tSome<br \/>\ngrievance has  also been  made about  non-implementation  of<br \/>\nwhat has been described as 1987 Package Deal.<br \/>\nGrievances relating to 1987 Package Deal :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The grievances on this aspect are three fold : (1) non-<br \/>\ninclusion   of\t  Non-Practicing   Allowance   (NPA)   while<br \/>\ndetermining entitlement\t for residential  accommodation; (2)<br \/>\nnon-creation of\t required number  of posts  of Chief Medical<br \/>\nOfficer, pay  scale for\t which was  agreed to  be  Rs.3,700-<br \/>\n5,000\/- ; and (3) non-giving of scale of Rs.4,500-5,700\/- to<br \/>\nthe Associate  Professors  on  completion  of  the  required<br \/>\nperiod of service.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The case  of the  Union of\t India regarding  the  first<br \/>\ngrievance is  that the\tNPA is\tnot taken  into account\t for<br \/>\ndetermining the\t eligibility of\t accommodation in   view  of<br \/>\nGovernment  of\t India&#8217;s  order\t  under\t the   Allotment  of<br \/>\nGovernment Residences  (General Pool  in Delhi) Rules, 1963.<br \/>\nThe further  case is that even special pay is not taken into<br \/>\naccount for this purpose. The petitoner&#8217;s stand, however, is<br \/>\nthat as the NPA is treated as part of basic pay for purposes<br \/>\nof computation\tof dearness  allowance,\t terminal  benefits,<br \/>\nhouse building advance, travelling concession benefits etc.,<br \/>\nthere is no justifiable reason to exclude this allowance for<br \/>\nthe purpose  of entitlement to residential accommodation. It<br \/>\nis urged  that merely  because the  special pay is not taken<br \/>\ninto account  for this\tpurpose, does  not provide  a cogent<br \/>\nreason for  excluding non-practicing  allowance inasmuch  as<br \/>\nspecial pay  is not  treated as\t part of  basic pay  for the<br \/>\naforesaid purposes as well.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   According to us, the present is basically a question of<br \/>\npolicy and  the claim  in this\tregard is not founded on any<br \/>\nright as  such. In  so far as the policy is concerned, there<br \/>\nmay be\tsome justification  for excluding the non-practicing<br \/>\nallowance for  the purpose at hand because this allowance is<br \/>\nseemingly not  paid to\tall the Service Doctors. So, if this<br \/>\nallowance is  included for the purpose at hand, the same may<br \/>\nbe disadvantageous  even to  some Service Doctors. We do not<br \/>\nsay more  than this,  as  this\tmatter\tis  presently  under<br \/>\nexamination of the Vth Pay Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   In so  far as  the creation of required number of posts<br \/>\nof Chief  Medical Officers  in the scale Rs.3,700-5,000\/- is<br \/>\nconcerned, it  may be  pointed out  that in  the  settlement<br \/>\nwhich was  arrived at  in 1989,\t it was agreed upon that the<br \/>\npromotion as  Chief Medical  Officer shall  be\t&#8220;subject  to<br \/>\navailability of\t vacancies&#8221;.  In  the  additional  affidavit<br \/>\nfiled on  behalf of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in<br \/>\nSeptember, 1995\t by one\t M.M. Perumal,\tDy. Secretary of the<br \/>\nMinistry, it has been stated that the upgradation was of 500<br \/>\nposts on  &#8216;functional basis&#8217; by identifying posts in various<br \/>\nparticipating Units\/Institutions  of Central  Health Service<br \/>\nwith a\tview to\t cover all  the eligible  officers who\thave<br \/>\nrequisite eligibility  service and  had been  recommended by<br \/>\nthe DPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   In so  far as  the non-giving  of\tscale  of  Rs.4,500-<br \/>\n5,700\/- meant  for teaching  sub-cadre, the  averment in the<br \/>\naforesaid affidavit  is that  the package envisaged that all<br \/>\nthe promotions\twould be  with prospective effect and so the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s contention\t that  placement  in  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nscale should  have been\t with effect  from 1.8.1987  is\t not<br \/>\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   The aforesaid  averments, the authenticity of which has<br \/>\nnot been  disputed, do\testablish  due\tfulfillment  of\t the<br \/>\npackage benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>1989 Settlement :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  The  only\tpoint  relating\t to  nonfulfillment  of\t the<br \/>\nsettlement is  that the benefits had not been made available<br \/>\nfrom 1.10.1987.\t In the aforesaid affidavit the statement is<br \/>\nthat  various\tallowances  like  non-practicing  allowance,<br \/>\nannual\tallowance   (contingency  allowance)   for  academic<br \/>\nresearch  and  other  professional  pursuit  and  conveyance<br \/>\nallowance have\tbeen granted  with effect from 1.10.1987. As<br \/>\nto the\tbenefits accruing  from the  Office Memorandum dated<br \/>\n14.11.1991 (infra),  which has incorporated the Government&#8217;s<br \/>\ndecisions  qua\tthe  Tikoo  Committee  recommendations,\t the<br \/>\naverment made  is that\tthey are  to be\t from a\t prospective<br \/>\ndate. There is merit in this contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>Tikoo Committee recommendations :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  A perusal\tof the\treport of  the Tikoo Committee shows<br \/>\nthat  the   recommendations  are   32  in   number.  As\t the<br \/>\nrecommendations had  huge financial  implications and needed<br \/>\nsorting out  some service  matters also,  in-depth study was<br \/>\nrequired and  after this  was done the Government considered<br \/>\nthe recommendations  and its  decisions qua  then came to be<br \/>\nincorporated in\t the Office  Memorandum dated  November\t 14,<br \/>\n1991.  In  so  far  as\tthe  recommendations  of  the  Tikoo<br \/>\nCommittee which have not been accepted, the first contention<br \/>\nof Shri\t Goswami on  behalf of\tthe Union  of India  is that<br \/>\nthere is  ample justification  for  nonacceptance.  He\tthen<br \/>\nurges that  instead of\tthis Court examining the question of<br \/>\njustification or  otherwise of\tthe same,  the matter may be<br \/>\nleft to\t be decided  by the Vth Pay Commission which was set<br \/>\nup recently  and is  in seizing\t of many  of the matters. To<br \/>\nsatisfy our  mind that this Pay Commission is examining many<br \/>\nmatters relating to the improvement in the service prospects<br \/>\nof the\tdoctors working\t under the  Central Health  Service,<br \/>\nShri Goswami  placed on\t record a  communication of  the Dy.<br \/>\nSecretary of  the  Commission  bearing\tNo.DOF\/14554\/94\/PC-B<br \/>\ndated  9th   September,\t 1994  seeking\tinformation  of\t the<br \/>\nMinistry of Health on a number of points, which information,<br \/>\nas per this communication, is needed for a detailed analysis<br \/>\nof the\tdemand of the doctors who have submitted a number of<br \/>\nmemoranda before  the Commission.  This communication  shows<br \/>\nthat the  information sought  relates, inter  alia,  to\t the<br \/>\ncadre size  and structure, pay scale in each sub-cadre, time<br \/>\nbound  promotion   scheme,  reasons  in\t not  treating\tnon-<br \/>\npracticing allowance  as part of basic pay for entitlement a<br \/>\nGovernment accommodation despite treating it as such for all<br \/>\npurposes and possibility of formation of a unified cadre for<br \/>\nall sub-cadres of doctors.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  Shri Sachar  contended in\tthe Court  as well as in his<br \/>\nwritten-submission filed on 28.11.1995, that the matters may<br \/>\nnot be\tleft to\t be decided  by the  Pay Commission because,<br \/>\naccording to  him, the\trights which  have  accrued  to\t the<br \/>\nmembers\t of   the  petitioner-Association,   following\t the<br \/>\nrecommendation of  the Tikkoo  Committee, are  vested rights<br \/>\nand if\tthe same  are not  made available,  the\t same  would<br \/>\nviolate\t Articles   14,\t 16  and  21  of  the  Constitution,<br \/>\nredressal of  which is not within the realm and jurisdiction<br \/>\nof the\tPay Commission.\t It has,  therefore, been  implored,<br \/>\nthat we\t ourselves should  decide the merits of the left out<br \/>\nmatters, otherwise  the entire exercise undertaken so far as<br \/>\nby the\tpetitioner would  be rendered  futile.\tThe  further<br \/>\nsubmission is  that as\twhat the Pay Commission would decide<br \/>\nwould be in a nature of recommendation, which the Government<br \/>\nmay accept  or may not, whereas what this Court would decide<br \/>\nwould be binding on it.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.  We have  duly applied our mind to the rival contentions<br \/>\nand, according to us, as it would be within the jurisdiction<br \/>\nof the Pay Commission not only to examine the pay structure,<br \/>\nbut also  the question of cadre review, on which much stress<br \/>\nhas been  given by  Shri Sachar. So, the submission that the<br \/>\nPay Commission\tcannot give the relief being claimed in this<br \/>\npetition is  not sustainable.  Of course,  what view the Pay<br \/>\nCommission would take in the matter is for the Commission to<br \/>\ndecide, and  all that can be said in this regard is that the<br \/>\nCommission,  while   making   its   recommendations,   would<br \/>\ndefinitely  bear  in  mind  the\t historical  background,  in<br \/>\nparticular the recommendations of the Tikoo Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.  As\t to   the  contention\tthat  the   members  of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner-Association have come to be clothed with a vested<br \/>\nright, we  would say  this is  not so  inasmuch as  what the<br \/>\nTikoo  Committee   has\tsaid   is  also\t in  the  nature  of<br \/>\nrecommendation and  unless accepted  cannot be\tsaid  to  be<br \/>\nbinding on the Union of India. No vested right has thus been<br \/>\ncreated\t by   the  force   of  the  recommendations  of\t the<br \/>\nCommittee.  It\t is,  of   course,  correct  that  what\t Pay<br \/>\nCommission would  say would  be recommendatory in nature, as<br \/>\ndistinguished from  the decision  of this  Court; but, as is<br \/>\nknown, recommendations\tof a high powered committee like Pay<br \/>\nCommission are\tnot rejected without cogent reasons. We have<br \/>\nno doubt  that in  the background of the present litigation,<br \/>\nthe  Central   Government,  while  taking  decision  on\t the<br \/>\nrecommendations to be made by the Pay Commission, would bear<br \/>\nin mind\t its commitment\t to Service Doctors given at various<br \/>\npoints of  time. Another reason which has weighed with us in<br \/>\naccepting  the\tcontention  of\tShri  Goswami  is  that\t the<br \/>\nbenefits to  a particular  service  may\t not  be  viewed  in<br \/>\nisolation; the\tsame have to be dove-tailed and matched with<br \/>\nbenefits to be given to members of other services.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.  For the  aforesaid reasons,  it would be appropriate to<br \/>\nawait the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission on those<br \/>\nmatters qua which the Government of India did not accept the<br \/>\nrecommendations of the Tikoo Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.  The result\t is that  in so\t far as the 1987 Package and<br \/>\n1989 Settlement are concerned, no further direction or order<br \/>\nof  this   Court  is   required.  As   to   the\t  unaccepted<br \/>\nrecommendations of  the Tikoo Committee, the recommendations<br \/>\nof the Vth Pay Commission may be awaited.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.  The writ  petition is  disposed of\t accordingly with no<br \/>\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 1990\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>     In view of the above, nothing further is required to be<br \/>\nstated in  this Writ  Petition. It  also stands\t disposed of<br \/>\naccordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Joint Action Councilof Service &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (7) 256, JT 1995 (9) 142 Author: H B.L. Bench: Hansaria B.L. (J) PETITIONER: JOINT ACTION COUNCILOF SERVICE DOCTORSORGANIZATIONS ETC.ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/12\/1995 BENCH: HANSARIA [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198449","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Joint Action Councilof Service ... vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995 - 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\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joint Action Councilof Service ... vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-14T01:45:59+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Joint Action Councilof Service &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-14T01:45:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995\"},\"wordCount\":1862,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995\",\"name\":\"Joint Action Councilof Service ... vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-14T01:45:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Joint Action Councilof Service &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Joint Action Councilof Service ... vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995 - 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\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joint Action Councilof Service ... vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-14T01:45:59+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Joint Action Councilof Service &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995","datePublished":"1995-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-14T01:45:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995"},"wordCount":1862,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995","name":"Joint Action Councilof Service ... vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-14T01:45:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joint-action-councilof-service-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-14-december-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Joint Action Councilof Service &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 14 December, 1995"}]},{"@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\/198449","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=198449"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198449\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198449"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198449"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}