{"id":205729,"date":"2008-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-29T20:47:56","modified_gmt":"2018-03-29T15:17:56","slug":"ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4069\/2008\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4069 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRAMJIBHAI\nBABUBHAI VALAND - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDEPUTY\nEXECUTIVE ENGINEER &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNILESH M SHAH for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR HG MAZMUDAR for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR\nRAJU K KOTHARI for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 27\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tIn<br \/>\nthis petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated<br \/>\n9.10.2007 passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application No.1 of<br \/>\n1998, whereby the Labour Court partly rejected present of<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s claim for wages for the period from 1.5.1997 to<br \/>\n30.9.1997 and allowed the claim only for the period from 1.10.1997 to<br \/>\n31.12.1997 on the ground that in the order passed by the High Court<br \/>\nin Letters Patent Appeal No.592 of 1997, there is no direction for<br \/>\npayment of wages for the period from 1.5.1997 to the date of order<br \/>\ni.e. 9.9.1997. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said partial<br \/>\nrejection of Recovery Application No.1 of 1998 passed by Labour<br \/>\nCourt, Surendranagar.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tSo<br \/>\nas to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to take into<br \/>\naccount certain relevant dates. It is the case of the petitioner that<br \/>\nhe was terminated on 21.10.1989. Aggrieved by the said termination,<br \/>\nthe petitioner raised an industrial dispute which culminated into<br \/>\nReference (LCS) No.300 of 1991. After adjudication of the said<br \/>\nReference, the Labour Court passed an award dated 24.1.1994 and<br \/>\ndirected the present respondent to reinstate the petitioner without<br \/>\nback-wages. The petitioner claimed that the said award was challenged<br \/>\nby the respondent by way of Special Civil Application No.3591 of 1994<br \/>\nand the said petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated<br \/>\n2.4.2007. The petitioner has also asserted that aggrieved by the<br \/>\nrejection of the petition, the respondent herein preferred Letters<br \/>\nPatent Appeal being No.592 of 1997 and by an order dated 9.9.1997,<br \/>\nthe said Letters Patent Appeal was also rejected. As per the claim of<br \/>\nthe petitioner, after the Letters Patent Appeal was rejected, the<br \/>\npetitioner came to be reinstated on 12.12.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.<br \/>\n\tAccording to the petitioner&#8217;s claim, he is entitled for wages for<br \/>\nthe period from 24.1.1994 i.e. the date on which the award in the<br \/>\naforesaid Reference came to be passed to 12.12.1998 i.e. when the<br \/>\npetitioner came to be reinstated. In other words, the dispute between<br \/>\nthe parties pertains to the petitioner&#8217;s claim for wages for the<br \/>\n?Spost-award?? period.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIt<br \/>\nappears that initially the petitioner filed writ petition being<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Application No.9394 of 1997, praying for direction for<br \/>\nthe payment of wages for the aforesaid period, however, the<br \/>\npetitioner was relegated to the Labour Court, so as to file<br \/>\nappropriate proceedings. The petitioner, therefore, filed Recovery<br \/>\nApplication No.199 of 1997 claiming the wages for the period from<br \/>\n24.1.1994 to 31.3.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\nLabour Court rejected the said claim for wages for the period from<br \/>\n24.1.1994 to 31.3.1997 and thereby rejected the said Recovery<br \/>\nApplication No.199 of 1997on the ground that there was no direction<br \/>\ngiven by the High Court, while rejecting the petition and\/or while<br \/>\nrejecting Letters Patent Appeal regarding payment of wages for post<br \/>\naward period. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled petition being Special Civil application No.4068 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tSometime<br \/>\nafter filing the aforesaid Recovery Application No.199 of 1997, the<br \/>\npetitioner had preferred another Recovery Application No.1 of 1998.<br \/>\nthe said Recovery Application No.1 of 1998 was preferred to claim<br \/>\nwages for the subsequent unpaid period i.e. for the period from<br \/>\n1.5.1997 to 31.12.1997. The Labour Court rejected, though only<br \/>\npartly, the said claim and the Recovery Application No.1 of 1998 on<br \/>\nthe same ground on which the Recovery Application No.199 of 1997 was<br \/>\nrejected. The subsequent Recovery Application No.1 of 1998 came to be<br \/>\npartly rejected and only partly granted inasmuch as the claim for the<br \/>\nperiod from 1.10.1997 to 31.12.1997 i.e. 69 days only came to be<br \/>\nallowed. The reason for granting the claim for the said limited<br \/>\nperiod, is that even after the judgment in L.P.A. No.592 of 1997, the<br \/>\npetitioner was not reinstated and since the judgment was rendered on<br \/>\n9.9.1997, the Labour Court allowed the claim only for the period<br \/>\nsubsequent to 9.9.1997. The petitioner has preferred present petition<br \/>\nagainst the said partial  rejection of the claim for wages for the<br \/>\nbalance period i.e. from 1.5.1997 to 30.9.1997 in Recovery<br \/>\nApplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tHeard<br \/>\nMr. Nilesh Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Raju K.<br \/>\nKothari for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIt<br \/>\nis not in dispute that the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 20.6.1990<br \/>\nand the award in Reference questing the termination, came to be<br \/>\npassed on 24.1.1994. The challenge against the said award by the<br \/>\npresent respondent has failed before the learned Single Judge and<br \/>\nbefore the Hon&#8217;ble Division Bench inasmuch as the petition being<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Application NO.9394 of 1997 and Letters Patent Appeal<br \/>\nNO.592 of 1997 have been rejected. Even if it is taken into account<br \/>\nthat during the pendency of the writ petition and\/or Letters Patel<br \/>\nAppeal any interim relief by way of stay against the implementation<br \/>\nof the award was operating then also, the same would come to an end<br \/>\nupon rejection of the petition and Letters Patent Appeals. Hence,<br \/>\nwhen the Letters Patent Appeal came to be rejected, the petitioner<br \/>\nwould become entitle for reinstatement in accordance with the<br \/>\ndirection given by the Labour Court in the Award dated 24.1.1994 in<br \/>\nReference No.300 of 1991. Upon entitlement for reinstatement the<br \/>\npetitioner would become entitle for wages also for the post-award<br \/>\nperiod i.e. for the period after 24.1.1994, except for the period<br \/>\nwhere the employee is in default (i.e. does not report for work<br \/>\ndespite being invited). In the present case, neither it was the<br \/>\ndefence of the respondent that despite being invited, the petitioner<br \/>\nhad not reported for work nor the Labour Court has rejected the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s claim on such ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe<br \/>\nonly ground on which the claim is rejected by the Labour Court is<br \/>\nthat the High Court has not given any specific direction for payment<br \/>\nof wages for the post award period and that therefore, the respondent<br \/>\nis not justified in claiming the wages that the ?Spost-award??<br \/>\nperiod from on 24.1.1994 till the date of actual reinstatement.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe<br \/>\nsaid reasoning given by the Labour Court while rejecting Recovery<br \/>\nApplication is erroneous and not sustainable. Hence, the same is set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.<br \/>\n It would be, however, an altogether different matter to also hold<br \/>\nthat the petitioner is justified in claiming the amount, towards<br \/>\nwages for the aforesaid period, in absence of any evidence which<br \/>\nwould establish that the petitioner was not at fault in not reporting<br \/>\nfor work during the period in question and that he was ready, able<br \/>\nand willing to report for work during the said period. It is neither<br \/>\nproper and practicable for this Court to decide about the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s claim and\/or to quantify the same and it would also be<br \/>\nnecessary for petitioner to establish the rate of wages prevailing<br \/>\nduring the relevant period and also necessary to establish that he<br \/>\nwas ready and willing to report for work, had he been allowed to<br \/>\nreport for work. Equally so, it would be open for the respondent to<br \/>\nestablish before the Labour Court that it was the petitioner,  who<br \/>\nwas at fault and therefore, he is not entitled for the amount claimed<br \/>\nby him.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThus,<br \/>\nthere can be number of reasons in support of the petitioner or in<br \/>\nsupport of the respondent, which will have to be examined by the<br \/>\nLabour Court before granting or declaring the relief prayed for by<br \/>\npetitioner. Unfortunately, the Labour Court has not examined any of<br \/>\nthese aspects and rejected the claim in and the Recovery Applications<br \/>\nonly on the ground that the High Court has not given any specific<br \/>\ndirection for payment of wages in order to rejection of the petition<br \/>\nnor in Letters Patent Appeal. The claim of the petitioner could not<br \/>\nhave been rejected on such ground. The reason assigned by the Labour<br \/>\nCourt while rejecting the application is erroneous and it is required<br \/>\nto be set aside. However, aforesaid aspect shall have to be examined<br \/>\nby the Labour Court and  this Court would not entertain a petition,<br \/>\nwhich requires such investigation of facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tIn<br \/>\nthe facts of the case, the order passed by Labour Court is set aside<br \/>\nand for the purpose of conducting aforesaid inquiry the case is<br \/>\nremanded to the Labour Court, where the parties can establish their<br \/>\nrespective claim and defence. Thus, the following order is passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tThe impugned common order dated<br \/>\n\t\t\t9.10.2007 in Recovery Application No.199 of 1997 (actually the<br \/>\n\t\t\tsaid order dated 9.10.2007 is common order in Recovery Application<br \/>\n\t\t\tNo.199\/97 and Recovery Application No.1 of 1998, however, since<br \/>\n\t\t\tthe separate petitions are filed in connection with the Recovery<br \/>\n\t\t\tApplication No.199 of 1997 and Recovery Application No.1 of 1998,<br \/>\n\t\t\tseparate orders are passed by this Court) is set aside and the<br \/>\n\t\t\tmatter is remanded to the Labour Court for deciding the same<br \/>\n\t\t\tafresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing and<br \/>\n\t\t\tleading evidence to both the sides. The Labour Court shall keep in<br \/>\n\t\t\tfocus that the reason on which recovery application was rejected<br \/>\n\t\t\tby it earlier has been set aside by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tWith<br \/>\nthe aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petition is partly<br \/>\nallowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(JAYANT<br \/>\nPATEL, J.)<\/p>\n<p>ynvyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4069\/2008 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4069 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-29T15:17:56+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-29T15:17:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1484,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-29T15:17:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-29T15:17:56+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-29T15:17:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008"},"wordCount":1484,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008","name":"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-29T15:17:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjibhai-vs-deputy-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramjibhai vs Deputy on 27 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/205729","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=205729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}