{"id":202304,"date":"2006-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006"},"modified":"2018-05-17T14:13:59","modified_gmt":"2018-05-17T08:43:59","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3982 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Madhya Pradesh & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nYogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/09\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3793 of 2006)<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether the respondents, who were engaged on daily wages, are
\nentitled to claim minimum of the pay scale attached to the post in which they
\nhad been working with applicable allowances, is the question involved in
\nthis appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 4th August, 2004
\npassed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Writ Petition
\nNo.6640\/2003.  The respondents were appointed on daily wages.  The
\namount of daily wages at the rate of Rs.97.14p. was fixed by the Collector of
\nDistrict.  They are not appointed upon compliance of the statutory rules.  No
\nadvertisement was issued.  Vacancies were also not notified to the
\nEmployment Exchange.\n<\/p>\n
On the premise that they are entitled to regularisation of their services,
\nthey filed an original application before the Madhya Pradesh State Tribunal,
\ninter alia, praying for the following reliefs :\n<\/p>\n
“(A)\tOrder be passed for payment of Pay Scale for
\nAssistant Grade Post Regular (except increment in
\nsalary benefit) from the date of filing the case
\nbefore this Hon’ble Tribunal from the Respondents
\nin view of the orders passed by Hon’ble M.P. State
\nAdministrative Tribunal Bhopal dated 15.12.97
\nAnnexure A-6.\n<\/p>\n
(B)\tThat the respondents be directed that Respondent
\nshould take appropriate action for regularising the
\napplicant as Assistant Grade III Post within the
\nprescribed time period.”\n<\/p>\n
In the said proceedings, the appellant inter alia, contended that the
\nrespondents having not been engaged on any vacant post, payment of salary
\non a regular scale of pay is impermissible in law.  The posts of Assistant
\nGrade III, it was pointed out, are filled up in terms of the procedures
\nprovided laid down in the Recruitment Rules known as Madhya Pradesh
\nPublic Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) Service (Conditions
\nof Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1976.  All recruitments, therefore, were
\nrequired to be made strictly in terms thereof.\n<\/p>\n
By reason of an order dated 1.1.2002, the Tribunal directed:\n<\/p>\n
“……In similar cases the Tribunal has given the relief to
\nthe applicants which the applicant’s counsel is seeking.
\nTherefore, this petition is disposed off with the direction
\nthat the applicants shall be paid the wages at the
\nminimum of the pay scale of the post on which they are
\nworking along with applicable allowances but without
\nthe benefit of increments with effect from the date of
\nfiling of this petition.  Provided these possess the
\nminimum qualification for the post.”\n<\/p>\n
Evidently, the Tribunal issued the said directions on the basis of an
\nearlier order dated 15.12.1997 passed by it in Original Application
\nNo.400\/1994.\n<\/p>\n
A writ petition filed by the appellant herein before the High Court was
\ndismissed by reason of the impugned judgment following an earlier decision
\nof the Division Bench of the same court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellants raised a short contention in support of this appeal.  It was urged
\nthat the respondents could have claimed salary on a regular scale of pay if
\nthey had a legal right to be regularised in service.  The respondents, it was
\ncontended, do not hold a post and therefore, the impugned judgment cannot
\nbe sustained.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Vimal Chandra Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondents, on the other hand, submitted that respondents were entitled to
\nthe same scale of pay as are being paid to the holders of Assistant Grade III
\non the basis of ‘doctrine of equal pay for equal work’.\n<\/p>\n
It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the respondents were not
\nappointed in terms of the statutory rules.  Their services were taken by the
\nofficers only to meet the exigencies of situation.  No post was sanctioned.
\nVacancies were not notified.  It is now trite that a State within the meaning
\nof Article 12 of the Constitution of India, while offering public employment,
\nmust comply with the constitutional as also statutory requirements.
\nAppointments to the posts must be made in terms of the existing rules.
\nRegularisation is not a mode of appointment.  If any recruitment is made by
\nway of regularisation, the same would mean a back-door appointment,
\nwhich does not have any legal sanction.\n<\/p>\n
In State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. KGSD Canteen Employees’
\nWelfare Assn. & Ors.<\/a> [(2006) 1 SCC 567], this Court laid down the law in
\nthe following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“The contention that at least for the period they
\nhave worked they were entitled to the remuneration in the
\nscale of pay as that of the government employees cannot
\nbe accepted for more than one reason.  They did not hold
\nany post.  No post for the canteen was sanctioned by the
\nState.  According to the State, they were not its
\nemployees.  Salary on a regular scale of pay, it is trite, is
\npayable to an employee only when he holds a status.
\n(See Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority<\/a>
\n(2005) 1 SCC 639.)<\/p>\n
The High Court was, thus, not correct in holding
\nthat the members of the first respondent could be treated
\non par with the Hospitality Organisation of the State of
\nKarnataka.  Such equation is impermissible in law.  In
\nthe Hospitality Organisation of the State, the posts might
\nhave been sanctioned.  Only because food is prepared
\nand served, the same would not mean that a canteen run
\nby a Committee can be equated thereto.”\n<\/p>\n
A person, who had been appointed by a State upon following the
\nRecruitment Rules, enjoys a status.  A post must be created and\/or
\nsanctioned before filling it up.  The question recently came up for
\nconsideration in M.P. Housing Board & Anr. vs. Manoj Shrivastava<\/a>
\n[(2006) 2 SCC 702], wherein it was held:\n<\/p>\n
“33. For the purpose of this matter, we would
\nproceed on the basis that the 1961 Act is a special statute
\nvis-`-vis the 1973 Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
\nBut in the absence of any conflict in the provisions of the
\nsaid Act, the conditions of service including those
\nrelating to recruitment as provided for in the 1973 Act
\nand the 1987 Rules would apply.  If by reason of the
\nlatter, the appointment is invalid, the same cannot be
\nvalidated by taking recourse to regularisation.  For the
\npurpose of regularisation which would confer on the
\nemployee concerned a permanent status, there must exist
\na post.  However, we may hasten to add that
\nregularis+ation itself does not imply permanency.  We
\nhave used the term keeping in view the provisions of the
\n1963 Rules.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further opined :\n<\/p>\n
“The appointment made by a person who has no
\nauthority therefor would be void.  A fortiori an
\nappointment made in violation of the mandatory
\nprovisions of the statute or constitutional obligation shall
\nalso be void.  If no appointment could be made in terms
\nof the statute, such appointment being not within the
\npurview of the provisions of the Act, would be void; he
\ncannot be brought within the cadre of permanent
\nemployees.  The definitions of “permanent employee”
\nand “temporary employee” as contained in the Rules
\nmust, thus, be construed having regard to the object and
\npurport sought to be achieved by the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Therein the question which arose for consideration was : ‘As to
\nwhether the respondents therein was a permanent employee within the
\nmeaning of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
\n1961?’  It was observed :\n<\/p>\n
“A person with a view to obtain the status of a
\n“permanent employee” must be appointed in terms of the
\nstatutory rules.  It is not the case of the respondent that he
\nwas appointed against a vacant post which was duly
\nsanctioned by the statutory authority or his appointment
\nwas made upon following the statutory law operating in
\nthe field.\n<\/p>\n
The Labour Court unfortunately did not advert to
\nthe said question and proceeded to pass its award on the
\npremise that as the respondent had worked for more than
\nsix months satisfactorily in terms of clause 2(vi) of the
\nStandard Standing Orders, he acquired the right of
\nbecoming permanent.  For arriving at the said conclusion,
\nthe Labour Court relied only upon the oral statement
\nmade by the respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
 The matter fell for consideration also in BHEL & Anr. vs. B.K.
\nVijay & Ors. [(2006) 2 SCC 654], wherein it was held :
\n“In terms of the proviso appended to Rule 5, the
\ndecision of the State Government, in any dispute raised
\nas regards the status of the Safety Officer, is to be final.
\nThe respondent did not raise such a dispute.  He made
\nrepresentations only after the judgment was passed in the
\ncriminal case.   In the criminal case the learned Chief
\nJudicial Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs.500 on the
\npersons who were accused therein.  Despite the finding in
\nthe said criminal case, it was open to the appellant to
\ncontend before the State Government that having regard
\nto the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent
\nwas not entitled to the remunerations payable to Senior
\nExecutive Officer.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advance Law Lexicon,
\n3rd Edn. Vol.4, at p.4469, the expression “status” has
\nbeen defined as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Status is a much discussed term which,
\naccording to the best modern expositions, includes
\nthe sum total of a man’s personal rights and duties
\n(Salmond, Jurisprudence 253, 257), or, to be
\nverbally accurate, of his capacity for rights and
\nduties. (Holland, Jurisprudence 88).\n<\/p>\n
The status of a person means his personal
\nlegal condition only so far as his personal rights
\nand burdens are concerned.  Duggamma v.\n<\/p>\n
Ganeshayya, AIR 1965 Mys 97 at 101. [Indian
\nEvidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 41.]
\nIn the language of jurisprudence status is a
\ncondition of membership of a group of which
\npowers and duties are exclusively determined by
\nlaw and not by agreement between the parties
\nconcerned. (Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India,<\/a>
\n1967 SLR 832).”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said expression has been defined in Black’s
\nLaw Dictionary meaning :\n<\/p>\n
“Standing; state or condition; social position.  The
\nlegal relation of individual to rest of the community. The
\nrights, duties, capacities and incapacities which
\ndetermine a person to a given class.  A legal personal
\nrelationship, not temporary in its nature nor terminable at
\nthe mere will of the parties, with which third persons and
\nthe state are concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOnly because a person is given a particular status,
\nthe same would not mean that his other terms and
\nconditions of service would not be governed by the
\ncontract of employment or other statute(s) operating in
\nthe field.  We may notice that a three-Judge Bench of this
\nCourt in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
\nv. Shramik Sena & Ors.<\/a> [(1999) 6 SCC 439] observed as
\nunder: (SCC p.449, para 22)
\n“[We] hold that the workmen of a statutory
\ncanteen would be the workmen of the
\nestablishment for the purpose of the Factories Act
\nonly and not for all other purposes.”\n<\/p>\n
{See also Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs. Surinder Kumar<\/a>
\n[JT 2006 (5) SCALE 505].}<\/p>\n
As the respondents did not hold any post, in our opinion, they are not
\nentitled to any scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n
However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
\ncase, we may observe that the State should take steps to fill up the vacant
\nposts, if any, as expeditiously as possible, in which event, the cases of the
\nrespondents may be considered together with other eligible candidates.
\nHowever, age bar, if any, to the extent they had worked with the appellants
\nmay be relaxed.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed on the above terms.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3982 of 2006 PETITIONER: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors RESPONDENT: Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/09\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha […]<\/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-202304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-17T08:43:59+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=\"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\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-17T08:43:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1920,\"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\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-17T08:43:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-17T08:43:59+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-17T08:43:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006"},"wordCount":1920,"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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-17T08:43:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-vs-yogesh-chandra-dubey-ors-on-8-september-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors on 8 September, 2006"}]},{"@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\/202304","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=202304"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202304\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}