{"id":204767,"date":"1995-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995"},"modified":"2017-12-04T21:27:52","modified_gmt":"2017-12-04T15:57:52","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (3) 528 JT 1995 (5)\t543<\/div>\n
Author: S Agrawal<\/div>\n
Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI DEBASHIS KAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/07\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nAHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  Supl.  (3) 528 JT 1995 (5)\t543\n 1995 SCALE  (4)528\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
(WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2125-33\/93, S.L.P.(C) NOS.8593-94\/87,
\n22016\/93, REVIEW PETITIONS (C) NOS.857-58\/91)
\n\t\t    J U D G M E N T
\nS.C. AGRAWAL. J. :\n<\/p>\n
     The common\t question that\tarises for  consideration in
\nthese cases  is whether Draughtsmen employed in the Ordnance
\nFactories and  the Workshops  of E.M.E.\t in the\t Ministry of
\nDefence are entitled to have their pay scales revised on the
\nbasis of  the Office  Memorandum of the Government of India,
\nMinistry of Finance, dated March 13, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     On the basis of the report of the Third Pay Commission,
\nthe pay scales of Draughtsmen employed in the Central Public
\nWorks Department (for short `C.P.W.D.’) of the Government of
\nIndia were revised in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
     i) Draughtsman Grade – I\t  Rs.425-700<\/p>\n
     ii) Draughtsman Grade – II\t  Rs.330-560\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii) Draughtsman Grade – III Rs.260-430
\n     The said  employees in  the C.P.W.D. were not satisfied
\nwith the  said revision\t and were  claiming that they should
\nhave been  placed on  higher pay  scales. This\tdispute\t was
\nreferred to a Board of Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration
\ngave the  award on  June 20,  1980 whereby the pay scales of
\nDraughtsmen were revised as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     i) Draughtsman Grade I\tRs.550-750\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii) Draughtsman Grade II\tRs.425-700\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii) Draughtsman Grade III Rs.330-560
\n     By the  award it  was directed that the above mentioned
\ncategories of draughtsmen shall be fixed notionally in their
\nrespective scales  of pay as aforesaid from January 1, 1973,
\nbut for\t computation of arrears, the date of reckoning shall
\nbe July\t 28\/29, 1978.  In accordance with the said award the
\npay scales  of draughtsmen  in C.P.W.D.\t were  revised\tvide
\norder dated  November 10,  1980. The draughtsmen employed in
\ndepartments other  than C.P.W.D.  claimed  the\trevision  of
\ntheir pay  scales in the light of the revision of pay scales
\nin the\tC.P.W.D. and  on March\t13, 1984  the Government  of
\nIndia, Ministry\t of  Finance  (Department  of  Expenditure),
\nissued an Office Memorandum whereby it was directed that the
\nscale of  pay  of  Draughtsmen\tGrade  III,  II,  I  in\t the
\noffice\/Department of the Government of India, other than the
\nC.P.W.D., may  be revised as per revised scales for C.P.W.D.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
provided their\trecruitment qualifications  are\t similar  to
\nthose prescribed  in the case of Draughtsmen in C.P.W.D. and
\nthose who  do  not  fulfil  the\t said  qualifications  would
\ncontinue in the pre-vised scales. Thereupen, the Ministry of
\nDefence on  July 3,  1984 issued  an order  whereby the user
\norganisations were  requested to  take necessary  action  in
\nterms of  para 2  of the  Office Memorandum  dated March 13,
\n1984. It  appears that\tin the\tOrdnance Factories under the
\ncontrol of the Director General of Ordnance Factories (DGOF)
\nno action  was taken to revise the pay scales of draughtsmen
\nas per\tthe Office  Memorandum dated  March 13, 1984. A Writ
\nPetition (Civil\t Order No.5023(W)  of 1985) was filed in the
\nCalcutta High  Court by\t some of the draughtsmen employed in
\nthe Ordnance Factories in the State of West Bengal. The said
\nWrit Petition  was disposed  of by  the High  Court by order
\ndated October  8, 1985\twhereby the  respondents in the said
\nwrit petition  were  directed  to  forthwith  implement\t the
\nOffice Memorandum  dated March 13, 1984 as well as the order
\nof Ministry  of Defence dated July 3, 1984 to revise the pay
\nscales in accordance therewith. The said order was clarified
\nby order  dated July  14, 1986 whereby it was indicated that
\nthe order  passed on  October 8,  1985 was restricted to the
\nwrit  petitioners   and\t the  added  respondents  only.\t The
\nOrdnance Factory  Board appointed a Sub-Committee to go into
\nthe matter  and on  the basis  of the  report  of  the\tSub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Committee, the Ordnance Factory Board in its meeting held on
\nSeptember  9,\t1986  decided  that  the  qualifications  of
\ndraughtsmen employed  in  the  Ordnance\t Factories  are\t not
\nsimilar\t to   those  of\t draughtsmen  in  the  C.P.W.D.\t and
\ntherefore, they\t were not  entitled to revision of their pay
\nscales as  per the  Office Memorandum  dated March 13, 1984.
\nThe petitioners\t in the\t said writ  petition  were  informed
\nabout the  said decision  of the Ordnance Factories Board by
\nletter dated  October 9,  1986. While  the matter  was\tthus
\npending consideration  before the  Ordnance Factory Board, a
\nWrit Petition  was filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court by
\ndraughtsmen employed  in the  Ordnance Factories situated in
\nthat  State  and  after\t the  constitution  of\tthe  Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal’), the said
\nwrit petition  was transferred\tto the Jabalpur Bench of the
\nTribunal and  it  was  registered  as  TAA  111\/86.  Another
\napplication  (DA-87\/86)\t was  also  filed  by  some  of\t the
\ndraughtsmen before  the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal. Both
\nthese applications were disposed of by the Jabalpur Bench of
\nthe Tribunal by judgment dated April 21, 1987 whereby it was
\nheld that  the applicants  were entitled to be placed at par
\nwith Grade  II draughtsmen of the C.P.W.D., i.e., in revised
\nscale Rs.  425-700, and\t that if  there are  any  individual
\nexceptions amongst  the applicants to this general equation,
\nthey  should   be  identified  by  a  suitable\tdepartmental
\ncommittee of  three Assessors  of whom\tone should  be\tfrom
\nManagement, one a technical person of appropriate level from
\ninside the  Ordnance Factory  and one technical outsider not
\nconnected  with\t the  Ordnance\tFactories  of  the  rank  of
\nProfessor  or  Addl.  Professor\t from  Engineering  College,
\nJabalpur or  Engineering Institute  at Roorkee, IIT, Kanpur.
\nThe Tribunal  rejected the contention urged on behalf of the
\nrespondents in\tthe said applications that the applicants do
\nnot possess  the recruitment  qualifications and  experience
\natleast\t equivalent   to  those\t of  grade  category  II  of
\ndraughtsman of\tC.P.W.D. The  justifications and reasons for
\nthe decision  of the  Ordnance Factory\tBoard at its meeting
\nheld on\t September 9,  1986 based  on the report of the Sub-
\nCommittee dated\t January 24,  1986 and\tthe findings  of the
\nSub-Committee that  the qualifications of draughtsmen in the
\nOrdnance Factories  have to  be treated\t as corresponding to
\nthose of Draughtsman Grade III in C.P.W.D. were not accepted
\nby the\tTribunal. Special  Leave Petitions  Nos. 8593-94  of
\n1987 filed by the Union of India and others against the said
\njudgment of the Tribunal were dismissed by the order of this
\nCourt dated  November  17,  1987  but  the  said  order\t was
\nsubsequently recalled  by another  order dated\t20th August,
\n1993 passed in Review Petitions (Civil) Nos. 847-48 of 1991.
\nThe respondents\t in the\t said Special  Leave Petitions have,
\nhowever, stated\t that the  said decision of the Tribunal has
\nalready\t been\timplemented  and  the  applicants  in  those
\napplications have  been allowed\t the revised  pay  scale  of
\nRs.425-700 with\t effect from  May 30,  1982  as\t per  Office
\nMemorandum dated  March 13,  1984  and\tthat  the  Assessors
\nCommittee which was constituted in pursuance of the decision
\nof the\tTribunal have  found that  the applicants  have\t the
\nqualifications\twhich\tare  equivalent\t  to  the  technical
\nqualifications of Draughtsman Grade II in C.P.W.D.\n<\/p>\n
     Two applications  (O.A.No.569 of  1986 and 570 of 1986)
\nwere filed  before the\tCalcutta Bench\tof the\tTribunal  by
\ndraughtsmen employed  in the Ordnance Factories in the State
\nof  West   Bengal  whereby   a\tdirection   was\t sought\t for
\nimplementation of  the\tOffice\tMemorandum  of\tMinistry  of
\nFinance dated  March 13, 1984 and the direction contained in
\nthe order  dated July  3, 1984\tof the\tMinistry of  Defence
\nafter setting  aside the  order dated October 9, 1986 passed
\nby the\tOrdnance Factories  Board. On  the said applications
\nthe Tribunal,  on September  10, 1987,\tpassed an  order for
\nsetting up of an expert committee to examine the recruitment
\nqualifications of  draughtsmen in the Ordnance Factories and
\nto examine  as to  whether they can be treated as similar to
\nor higher than the recruitment qualifications of Draughtsman
\nGrade II  in C.P.W.D.  An Expert  Committee was\t set  up  in
\npursuance of the said order of the Tribunal and it submitted
\nits  report  dated  December  4,  1987\twherein\t the  Expert
\nCommittee opined  that\tthe  recruitment  qualifications  of
\ndraughtsmen in\tthe Ordnance Factories is neither similar to
\nnor  higher   than  the\t  recruitment\tqualifications\t for
\nDraughtsman Grade  II in the C.P.W.D. The said report of the
\nExpert Committee  was assailed\tby the applicants before the
\nTribunal by  filing Miscellaneous  Applications, being\tM.A.
\nNos.94 and  94 A of 1988 in D.A. Nos. 569 of 1986 and 570 of
\n1986 pending  before the Tribunal. The original applications
\nas well\t as the miscellaneous applications were all disposed
\nof by  the Calcutta  Bench of the Tribunal by judgment dated
\nDecember 31, 1990. Relying upon the judgment dated April 21,
\n1987 of\t the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in T.A.A.No. 111
\nof 1986\t and O.A.No.  87 of  1986, the Calcutta Bench of the
\nTribunal quashed  the order  dated 9th October, 1986 as well
\nas the report of the Expert Committee dated December 4, 1987
\nand directed that the applicants in the said applications be
\ngiven the benefit as prayed for by them on the same lines as
\nthe direction  given by\t the Jabalpur  Bench in its judgment
\ndated April  21, 1987. Special Leave Petitions Nos. 9840-40A
\nof 1991\t filed by  the Union of India and others against the
\nsaid judgment  of the  Tribunal were  dismissed by  order of
\nthis Court dated July 29, 1991. Review Petitions Nos. 857-58
\nof 1991 filed against the said order were dismissed by order
\ndated October  25, 1991\t but by\t a  subsequent\torder  dated
\nNovember 28,  1994 the\tsaid order  dated October  25,\t1991
\ndismissing the\tReview Petitions was recalled and the Review
\nPetitions have\tbeen directed  to be tagged with the Special
\nLeave Petition Nos. 8593-94 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     Another application  (O.A.No. 333\tof 1993)  was  filed
\nbefore the  Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal by the applicants
\nwho were  working as  draughtsmen under\t the control  of the
\nGeneral Manager,  Ordnance  Factory,  Ishapur  wherein\tthey
\nsought a  direction in\tterms of  the  judgment\t dated\t31st
\nDecember, 1990\tdelivered  by  the  Calcutta  Bench  of\t the
\nTribunal in  O.A.Nos. 569-570 of 1986 and for a direction to
\nfix their  pay in  terms of  the Office\t Memorandum  of\t the
\nCentral Government dated March 13, 1984 and order dated July
\n3, 1984.  The said  petition was  allowed by the Tribunal by
\njudgment dated\tAugust 1,  1984 and  the respondents  in the
\nsaid application  were directed to extend the benefit of the
\njudgment dated\tDecember 31,  1990 delivered by the Tribunal
\nin O.A.Nos. 569 and 570 of 1986 to the applicants and to fix
\ntheir pay  in terms  of the orders of the Central Government
\ndated March 13, 1984 and July 3, 1984. Civil Appeal No. 1443
\nof 1993\t has been  filed by  the Union\tof India  and Others
\nagainst the said judgment of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     Special Leave  Petition (Civil)  No. 22016\t of 1993 has
\nbeen filed  against the\t judgment and  order dated  June 23,
\n1993 of\t the Hyderabad\tBench of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 140
\nof 1992 filed by applicants who were employed as draughtsman
\nin the\tOrdnance Factory  at Edumelaram in Medak District of
\nAndhra Pradesh.\t Following the decisions of the Jabalpur and
\nCalcutta Benches  aforementioned, the Hyderabad Bench of the
\nhas directed  that the\tpay of\tthe applicants,\t other\tthan
\napplicants Nos.\t 7, 11\tand 17,\t be fixed in the revised pay
\nscale of  Draughtsman Grade  II\t from  the  dates  of  their
\nrespective appointment\tpromotion as draughtsmen in the said
\nOrdnance Factory  in accordance\t with the  office memorandum
\ndated March 13, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     In accordance  with order\tof the\tMinistry of  Defence
\ndated July 3, 1984 orders were passed on August 14, 1984 and
\nFebruary 15, 1985 revising the pay scales in accordance with
\nthe  Office  Memorandum\t dated\tMarch  13,  1984  but  by  a
\nsubsequent order of E.M.E. Records dated October 30, 1986 on
\nthe  basis   of\t which\tother  orders  were  passed  by\t the
\nrespective Commandants of the Base Workshops the said orders
\nwere rescinded\tand the\t benefit of  the revised  pay scales
\nwhich  had   been  extended   was  withdrawn.  A  number  of
\napplications  were   filed  before   the  Tribunal   by\t the
\ndraughtsmen  in\t Army  Base  Workships,\t E.M.E.\t which\twere
\ndisposed of  by the  Principal\tBench  of  the\tTribunal  by
\njudgment dated\tMay 15,\t 1992 whereby  the orders  of E.M.E.
\nRecords dated  30th  October,  1986  and  subsequent  orders
\nissued by  the respective Commandants of the respective Base
\nWorkshops in  pursuance of  the said  order  of\t the  E.M.E.
\nRecords, Secunderabad  have been quashed and it has directed
\nthat the  applicants in the applications before the Tribunal
\nbe placed  in their  revised scale  of\tpay  as\t per  Office
\nMemorandum dated  March 13, 1984 notionally with effect from
\nMay 13,\t 1982 and  that the  actual benefit  be allowed with
\neffect from November 1, 1983. C.A. Nos. 2125-33 of 1993 have
\nbeen filed  by the  Union of India against the said judgment
\nof the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     Though by order dated April 7, 1994 S.L.P. Nos. 8593-94
\nof 1987\t were directed\tto be  listed after  the decision in
\nC.A. Nos.  2125-33 of  1993 but\t since\tthe  said  SLPs\t are
\ndirected against  the judgment\tof the Jabalpur Bench of the
\nTribunal dated\tApril 21, 1987 which forms the basis for the
\njudgments  of  other  Benches  of  the\tTribunals  in  other
\nconnected matters,  we have  taken up  SLPs Nos.  8593-94 of
\n1987 along  with these\tmatters and have heard the said SLPs
\nalso and the same are being disposed of by this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The narration of the facts referred to above would show
\nthat  all  these  matters  relate  to  revision\t of  pay  of
\ndraughtsmen employed  in the  Ministry\tof  Defence  of\t the
\nGovernment of  India and except the respondents in C.A. Nos.
\n2125-33 of  1993, the  respondents in  the other matters are
\nall  employed\tas  draughtsmen\t  in  the  various  Ordnance
\nFactories  under   the\tOrdnance  Factories  Board  and\t the
\nrespondents in\tC.A. Nos.  2125-33 of  1993 are\t draughtsmen
\nemployed in  the Army Base Workshops under the E.M.E. In the
\nimpugned judgments  the various Benches of the Tribunal have
\ntaken the  view that  the qualifications which were required
\nfor appointment\t of draughtsman in the Ordnance Factories as
\nwell as\t in the\t Army Base  Workshops  in  the\tE.M.E.\twere
\nequivalent to  the qualifications  which were prescribed for
\nappointment on\tthe post  of  Daughtsman  Grade\t II  in\t the
\nC.P.W.D. and  therefore, the  respondents who were placed in
\nthe pay\t scale of  Rs. 335-560 on the basis of the report of
\nthe Third  Pay Commission  were entitled to be placed in the
\nrevised pay  scale of  Rs. 425-700  in accordance  with\t the
\nOffice Memorandum of the Ministry of Finance dated March 13,
\n1984. On  behalf of  the Union of India and other appellants
\nin  the\t  appeals  and\tpetitioners  in\t the  Special  Leave
\nPetitions and  the Review  Petitions, the  said view  of the
\nTribunal has  been assailed  and it  has been urged that the
\nqualifications for appointment on the post of draughtsman in
\nthe Ordnance  Factorries and  the Army Base Workshops of the
\nE.M.E. cannot be treated as equivalent to the qualifications
\nfor appointment\t on the\t post of  Draughtsman  Grade  II  in
\nC.P.W.D.  and\ttherefore,  the\t said  respondents  are\t not
\nentitled to  the benefit  of revision of pay on the basis of
\nthe Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     During the\t pendency of  these cases  in this Court the
\nGovernment of  India, Ministry\tof  Finance  has  issued  an
\nOffice Memorandum dated October 19, 1994 which is reproduced
\nas under :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    OFFICE MEMORANDUM
\n     Subject : Revision of pay scales of Draughtsmen GradeI,
\n\t       II and III in all Government of India offices
\n\t       on the basis of the Award of the Board of
\n\t       Arbitration in the case of Central Public
\n\t       Works Department.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  undersigned\tis  directed   to  refer   to\tthis
\nDepartment’s O.M.No.F.5(59)-E.III\/82  dated 13.3.84  on\t the
\nsubject mentioned  above and  to say that a Committee of the
\nNational Council (JCM) was set up to consider the request of
\nthe staff  side that the following scales of pay, allowed to
\nthe Draughtsman\t Grade I,  II &\t III working  in CPWD on the
\nbasis of  the Award of Board of Arbitration, may be extended
\nto Draughtsman\tGrade I,  II &\tIII  irrespective  of  their
\nrecruitment  qualification,   in  all  Government  of  India
\noffices :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t Original Scale\t    Revised Scale on\n\t\t\t\t\t    the basis of the\n\t\t\t    (Rs.)\t       Award (Rs.)\n\t\t\t----------------    ----------------\nDraughtsman\t\t  425 - 700\t\t550 - 750\nGrade I\nDraughtsman\t\t  330 - 560\t\t425 - 700\nGrade II\nDraughtsman\t\t  260 - 430\t\t330 - 560\nGrade III\n<\/pre>\n
2.   The  President  is\t now  pleased  to  decide  that\t the
\nDraughtsman Grade  I, II & III in offices\/departments of the
\nGovernment of India other than in CPWD may also be placed in
\nthe scale of pay mentioned above subject to the following :\n<\/p>\n
     (a) Minimum period of service for\t\t7 Years
\n\t Placement from the post
\n\t 1540 to Rs. 1200-2040 (pre –\n<\/p>\n
\t revised Rs. 260-430 to Rs.330-560)\n<\/p>\n
     (b) Minimum period of service for\t\t5 Years
\n\t placement from the post carrying
\n\t scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to Rs.1400\n<\/p>\n
\t -2300(prerevised Rs. 330-560 to
\n\t Rs. 425-700)\n<\/p>\n
     (c) Minimum period of service for
\n\t placement from the post carrying
\n\t scale of Rs. 1400-2300 to Rs.1600\n<\/p>\n
\t -2600(prerevised Rs.425-700 to Rs.\n<\/p>\n
\t 550-750)\n<\/p>\n
3.   Once the  Draughtsman are placed in the regular scales,
\nfurther promotions would be made against available vacancies
\nin  higher   grade  and\t  in  accordance   with\t the  normal
\neligibility criteria laid down in the recruitment rules.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The benefit  of this revision of scales of pay would be
\ngiven with  effect from 13.5.82 notionally and actually from
\n1.11.83.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   (Shyam Sunder)
\n\t  Under Secretary to the Government of India”
\n     By the said office memorandum, the Government of India,
\nafter considering  the request\tof the\tstaff side  that the
\nscales of  pay, allowed to the Draughtsmen Grade I, II & III
\nworking in C.P.W.D. on the basis of the above Award of Board
\nof Arbitration\tmay be extended to Draughtsmen Grade I, II &
\nIII irrespective  of their recruitment qualifications in all
\nGovernment of  India offices,  has decided  that Draughtsmen
\nGrade I,  II &\tIII in offices\/departments of the Government
\nof India  other than  in C.P.W.D.  may also be placed in the
\nrevised scales\tof pay\ton the basis of the award subject to
\ncertain minimum\t period\t of  service  as  mentioned  in\t the
\nclauses (a), (b) and (c) in para 2 of the Office Memorandum.
\nThe benefit  of this  revision of  scales of  pay under\t the
\noffice memorandum  dated 19th  October, 1994  has been given
\nretrospectively with effect from the same dates as was given
\nby the\tOffice Memorandum  dated March\t13, 1984, i.e., from
\nMay 13,\t 1982 notionally  and actually\tfrom  1st  November,
\n1983.  In   respect  of\t  draughtsmen  who   fulfilled\t the
\nrequirement relating  to the  period of service mentioned in
\nthe said  Office Memorandum  dated 19th October, 1994 on the
\nrelevant  date\t the  question\t whether  their\t recruitment
\nqualifications\twere   similar\tto  those  in  the  case  of
\ndraughtsman in\tC.P.W.D. would\tnot arise  and they would be
\nentitled to  the  revised  pay\tscales\tas  granted  to\t the
\ndraughtsmen in\tC.P.W.D. irrespective  of their\t recruitment
\nqualifications. But  in respect of those draughtsmen who did
\nnot fulfil the requirement relating to the period of service
\nprescribed in  para 2  of the  office memorandum  dated 19th
\nOctober,  1994\t the  question\t whether  their\t recruitment
\nqualifications\tare   similar  to   those   prescribed\t for
\ndraughtsmen in C.P.W.D. is required to be considered for the
\npurpose of deciding whether they are entitled to the benefit
\nof the\trevision of  pay scales as per the office memorandum
\ndated March 13, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     We will  first take  up the  case of draughtsmen in the
\nOrdnance  Factories.  In  C.P.W.D.  the\t qualifications\t for
\ndirect appointment  on the  post of  Draughtsman Grade II is
\nCertificate or\tDiploma in  Civil, Mechanical  or Electrical
\nEngineering from  a recognised\tInstitution with  6  months’
\npractical  training  plus  additional  one  year  employment
\nexperience in  an organisation\tor firm\t of repute  and\t the
\nposts not  filled by direct recruitment are filled primarily
\nby appointment\tof Draughtsmen\tTrainees. The Jabalpur Bench
\nof the\tTribunal, in  its judgment dated April 21, 1987, has
\nstated that  it has  been admitted by the Ordnance Factories
\nBoard that  the relevant recruitment rules, namely SRO, 4 of
\n1956, is  silent on the mode of filling posts of draughtsman
\nand that the practice followed by the Ordnance Factory Board
\nis as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “By  gradation   of  D’men\t trainees  on
\n     successful completion of training as per
\n     scheme for\t the  training\tof  D’men  at
\n     ATS\/OFTI Ambarnath\t introduced vide M of
\n     D letter  referred to  above.  Posts  of
\n     D’men in  O.F.’s are filled primarily by
\n     appointment of  D’man Trainees. However,
\n     a few  posts are also filled bypromotion
\n     of\t tracers   with\t  minimum   3\tyears
\n     experience in that trade”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The Tribunal\thas  observed  that  the  scheme  of
\ntraining of  draughtsmen at  ATS Ambarnath  was laid down in
\nthe Ministry  of Defence’s letter of November 14, 1969 which
\nprescribes  the\t various  entrance  qualifications  and\t the
\ncurriculum and\tthe period of training and that the entrance
\nqualification is  matriculation\t with  two  years  practical
\nexperience in Tools Room or 1-1\/2 years Draughtsman’s course
\nof I.T.I.  and that  after selection 2-1\/2 years training is
\ngiven which  includes six  months working  in factories\t and
\nthat according\tto clause  10 of  the Scheme  a\t draughtsmen
\ntrainee will  be  graded  either  for  the  post  of  Senior
\nDraughtsman or\tDraughtsman and that the scheme nowhere lays
\ndown that those trainees can be posted as Tracers. According
\nto  the\t  Tribunal,  the   qualifications   prescribed\t for
\ndraughtsmen in\tOrdnance Factories are similar or equivalent
\nto those prescribed for recruitment in C.P.W.D. The Tribunal
\nhas held  that the  decision of\t the Ordnance  Factory Board
\nbased  on  the\tSub-Committee  report  that  the  applicants
\n(respondents herein)  should be\t equated  with\tTracers\t and
\nDraughtsman Grade  III of  C.P.W.D. was\t fallacious. In this
\ncontext, it would be relevant to mention that as per the pay
\nscales fixed  on the  basis  of\t report\t of  the  First\t Pay
\nCommission of 1947 there was no difference in the pay scales
\nof Draughtsmen and Tracers in the Ordnance Factories and the
\npay scales  of Draughtsmen  and Tracers\t in C.P.W.D.  Senior
\nDraughtsman in the Ordnance Factories and Draughtsman in the
\nC.P.W.D. were  placed in  the  pay  scale  of  Rs.  150-225,
\nDraughtsman  in\t  the  Ordnance\t  Factories  and   Assistant
\nDraughtsman in C.P.W.D. were placed in the scale of Rs. 100-
\n185 and Tracers in Ordnance Factories as well as in C.P.W.D.
\nwere placed  in the scale of Rs. 60-150. On the basis of the
\nreport of  the Second  Pay Commission  in 1959\tthere was  a
\nslight modification  in the  pay scale of Senior Draughtsman
\nin Ordnance Factories. Tracers in the Ordnance Factories and
\nC.P.W.D. were  placed in  the same  pay scale of Rs. 110-200
\nand  Draughtsmen   in  Ordnance\t  Factories  and   Assistant
\nDraughtsmen C.P.W.D.  were placed  in the  same pay scale of
\nRs. 150-240.  Senior Draughtsmen  in Ordnance Factories were
\nplaced in  the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 while Draughtsmen in
\nC.P.W.D. were  placed in  the pay  scale of  Rs. 180-380. By
\nNotification dated  September 1,  1965, there  was change in
\nthe designation of posts of drawing office staff in C.P.W.D.
\nand Draughtsman\t was  designated  as  Draughtsman  Grade  I,
\nAssistant Draughtsman was designated as Draughtsman Grade II
\nand  Tracer   was  designated\tas  Draughtsman\t Grade\tIII.
\nThereafter on  the basis  of the  report of  the  Third\t Pay
\nCommission in  1973, Tracer  in the  Ordnance Factories\t and
\nDraughtsmen Grade  III in  C.P.W.D. were  placed in the same
\npay scale  of Rs. 260-430, Draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories
\nand Draughtsmen Grade II in C.P.W.D. were placed in the same
\npay scale  of Rs.330-560  and Senior Draughtsmen in Ordnance
\nFactories and  the Draughtsmen\tGrade  I  in  C.P.W.D.\twere
\nplaced in  the same pay scale of Rs.425-700. This would show
\nthat Tracer in Ordnance Factories has all along been treated
\nas equivalent  to Tracer\/Draughtsman  Grade III\t in C.P.W.D.
\nand Draughtsman\t in Ordnance  Factories has  all along\tbeen
\ntreated as  equivalent to  Assistant Draughtsman\/Draughtsman
\nGrade II  in C.P.W.D.  As a  result of\tthe revision  of pay
\nscales in C.P.W.D. on the basis of the Award of the Board of
\nArbitration, the  pay scale  of Draughtsman  Grade  III\t was
\nrevised to  Rs. 330-560,  while that of Draughtsman Grade II
\nwas revised  to Rs.  425-700 and  of Draughtsman Grade I was
\nrevised to  Rs. 550-750.  The denial  of similar revision of
\npay scale  to Draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories would result
\nin   their    being   down-graded    to\t  the\t level\t  of
\nTracer\/Draughtsman Grade  III in  C.P.W.D. Office Memorandum
\ndated March 13, 1984 cannot, in our opinion, be construed as
\nhaving such an effect.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri N.N. Goswami, the learned senior counsel appearing
\nin support  of the  appeals as\twell as\t the  Special  Leave
\nPetitions and  the Review  Petitions,  has  urged  that\t the
\nchannel of promotion in Ordnance Factories is different from
\nthe channel of promotion in C.P.W.D. inasmuch as in C.P.W.D.
\nthere is  no further  promotion after  a person\t reches\t the
\nscale of  Draughtsman Grade  I while in Ordnance Factories a
\ndraughtsman is entitled to be promoted as Chargeman Grade II
\nand thereafter\tas Chargeman Grade I and as Foreman and that
\nthe post of Chargeman Grade II which is the promotional post
\nfor draughtsman was in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 and that
\nplacement of Draughtsman in the said pay scale of Rs.425-700
\nwould result  in Draughtsman  being placed at the same level
\nas  the\t  promotional  post   of  Chargeman  Grade  II\tand,
\ntherefore, the\tbenefit of  the revision of pay scales under
\nOffice Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 cannot be extended to
\nthe Draughtsmen\t in Ordnance  Factories. On  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondents it\tis disputed  that there\t are no\t promotional
\nchances for  Draughtsman Grade\tI in C.P.W.D.. This question
\nwas not\t agitated in  any of the matters before the Tribunal
\nand we\tare, therefore,\t unable to entertain this plea urged
\nby Shri\t Goswami on behalf of the appellants\/petitioners. As
\nregards the  post of  Chargeman Grade II being a promotional
\npost for  Draughtsman in  Ordnance Factories and it being in
\nthe scale of Rs. 425-700 at the relevant time, we are of the
\nview that merely because of promotional post for Draughtsmen
\nin Ordinance  Factories was  in the  scale  of\tRs.  425-700
\ncannot be  a justification  for denying\t the revision of pay
\nscales to Draughtsmen and their being placed in the scale of
\nRs. 425-700  on the  basis of  the Office  Memorandum  dated
\nMarch 13, 1984 if such Draughtsmen are otherwise entitled to
\nsuch revision  in the  pay scale  on the  basis of  the said
\nMemorandum. Moreover,  the provision  regarding promotion of
\nDraughtsman as Chargeman Grade II in Ordinance Factories was
\nintroduced  by\t the  Indian   Ordnance\t Factories  Group  C
\nSupervisory  and   Non-Gazetted\t  Cadre\t  (Recruitment\t and
\nConditions of  Service) Rules, 1989 issued vide Notification
\ndated May  4, 1989.  The said Rules are not retrospective in
\noperation. Here\t we are\t concerned with\t the revision of pay
\nscales with  effect from  May 13,  1982 on  the basis of the
\nOffice Memorandum  dated March\t13, 1984  and, at that time,
\nthe said  Rules were  not operative. Therefore, on the basis
\nof the\taforesaid Rules\t Draughtsmen in\t Ordinance Factories
\ncannot be  denied the  benefit of  revision of pay scales on
\nthe basis of the Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984. The
\nappeals and the SLPs as well as Review Petitions relating to
\ndraughtsmen in\tOrdnance Factories are, therefore, liable to
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     Dealing with  draughtsmen in the Army Base Workshops in
\nthe E.M.E., the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has observed
\nthat  in  the  E.M.E.  for  the\t post  of  draughtsman,\t the
\nqualifications that are prescribed are “Matriculation or its
\nequivalent  with   two\tyears\tDiploma\t in  draughtsmanship
\nMechanical or  its equivalent”. The Tribunal has referred to
\nthe Report  of\tthe  Third  Pay\t Commission  wherein,  while
\ndealing with  draughtsmen who  were in\tthe pay scale of Rs.
\n150-240 (as  per report\t of Second  Pay Commission),  it  is
\nstated :\n<\/p>\n
     “(ii) for\tthe next  higher grade of Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     150-240 the  requirement is  generally a
\n     Diploma   in   Draughtsmanship   or   an
\n     equivalent qualification in Architecture
\n     (both  of\t 2  years’   duration\tafter
\n     Matriculation).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Tribunal  has observed\t that Tracer  in the  E.M.E.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
could not  be treated  in any  other manner  but at par with
\nGrade III  Draughtsman of  C.P.W.D. keeping  in\t view  their
\nrecruitment  qualifications.  The  Tribunal  held  that\t the
\nbenefit of  Office Memorandum  dated march 13, 1984 had been
\nrightly extended  to Draughtsmen  in  E.M.E.  and  that\t its
\nwithdrawal was illogical and irrational. The learned counsel
\nfor the\t appellants has been unable to show that is the said
\nview of\t the Tribunal  suffers from an infirmity which would
\njustify interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Civil Appeal Nos. 1433 of 1986, 2125-33 of 1993 as well
\nas S.L.Ps.  (Civil) Nos.  8593-94 of 1987, 22016 of 1993 and
\nReview Petitions (Civil) Nos. 857-58 of 1991 are accordingly
\ndismissed but  in the  facts and  circumstances of the case,
\nthe parties are left to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC, Supl. (3) 528 JT 1995 (5) 543 Author: S Agrawal Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI DEBASHIS KAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/07\/1995 BENCH: AGRAWAL, […]<\/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-204767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-04T15:57:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-04T15:57:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995\"},\"wordCount\":4753,\"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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-04T15:57:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 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":"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-04T15:57:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995","datePublished":"1995-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-04T15:57:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995"},"wordCount":4753,"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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-04T15:57:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-shri-debashis-kar-ors-on-20-july-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Debashis Kar & Ors on 20 July, 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\/204767","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=204767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}