{"id":206182,"date":"2002-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2"},"modified":"2015-12-24T09:57:17","modified_gmt":"2015-12-24T04:27:17","slug":"sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2","title":{"rendered":"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 690, 97 (2002) DLT 347, 2003 (97) FLR 709, 2003 (1) SLJ 200 Delhi<\/div>\n
Author: S K Kaul<\/div>\n
Bench: S K Kaul<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. Rule.\n<\/p>\n
 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the
\nparties the matter is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The petitioner are officers and employees
\nworking in different capacities at different centres of
\nhindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Limited –
\nrespondent No. 2. The performance of respondent No. 2
\napparently started suffering from 1991 onwards and in
\n1996 the case of respondent No. 2 was referred to
\nDisinvestment Commission. The Disinvestment Commission
\nsubmitted its report and the case of respondent No. 2
\ncorporation was also referred to Board For Industrial
\nAnd Financial Reconstruction (for short the BIFR) under
\nSection 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special
\nProvisions) Act, 1985 (for short the said SICA) in
\nDecember, 1999. The BIFR declared respondent No. 2
\ncorporation as a sick industrial company in terms of
\nthe provision of Section 3(1)(o) of the said Act. The
\npetitioner and other officers of the respondent No. 2
\ncorporation also moved the BIFR to be imp leaded as
\nparty and sought directions for revival of respondent
\nNo. 2. Certain directions were passed by the BIFR.\n<\/p>\n
 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
\n6.11.2000 issued by the Government of India introducing
\na Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) for the employees of
\nrespondent No. 2. The scheme was kept open for a period
\nof 3 months and it was envisaged in the said order that
\nthe employees who failed to apply under the scheme
\nwould be eligible only for retrenchment under the
\nprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A
\nrepresentation was made by the petitioners for keeping
\nin abeyance the said scheme till the BIFR considers the
\nissue or in the alternative pay wages\/compensation in
\nterms of the directions of the Supreme Court relating
\nto the Subzi Mandi unit of respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
 5. The petitioner has ultimately filed the
\npresent petition seeking the following relief:-\n<\/p>\n
  “a) issue a writ of mandamus
\nor any other appropriate writ order
\nor direction directing the
\nrespondent to extend the proposed
\nVoluntary Separation Scheme dated
\n6.11.2000 vide Notification
\nNo.F. 5-3\/99 HVOC till the final
\ndecision is taken by the BIFR for
\nthe purposes of
\nrevival\/rehabilitation of HVOC; and\n<\/p>\n
b) issue a writ of mandamus or
\nany other appropriate writ order or
\ndirection directing the Respondent
\nauthorities to formulate a ‘Golden
\nHand Shake’ Scheme based on the
\npackage as ordered by the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court in T.A.No. 30 in Writ
\nPetition No. 4677\/1985 dated 31.12.96
\non the revised wages\/salaries’<\/p>\n
 6. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor the petitioner has contended that the basis of the
\nscheme of voluntary separation as also the short period
\nwithin which the application was sought from the
\nemployees is arbitrary and illegal. The said scheme
\nwas sought to be implemented under the threat of
\nclosure. The learned senior counsel contends that the
\nbenefits to be extended to the employees cannot be
\ndecided in isolation and that the employees would be
\nentitled for their dues and claims w.e.f. 1.4.97.
\nThus the contention is that the revision of the pay
\nscale having been given to the other public sector
\nenterprises w.e.f. 1.1.97 should also be made
\napplicable to respondent No. 2 corporation. Mr. Dutta,
\nlearned senior counsel, has contended that even the
\nDisinvestment Commission took note of the substantial
\nassets of respondent No. 2 and observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “The estimate value of the
\nother freehold real estates owned by
\nHVOCL Units (as per valuation
\nperformed by Central Bureau of
\nDirect Taxes (CBDT) in November,
\n1996) is quite substantial. Hence,
\nthe net inflow to Government by
\nclosing down all the units by
\nliquidating their assets and selling
\nthe breakfast foods unit after
\nsettling all the claims and
\nretirement benefits would still be
\nhigh.”\n<\/p>\n
 7. Learned senior counsel while contending that the
\npurport of the scheme is in fact to scuttle the
\nproceedings before the BIFR referred to the note to
\npara 6.1.1 of the voluntary retirement scheme of
\nHindustan Organic Chemicals Limited to the following
\neffect:-\n<\/p>\n
 “i) Salary for the purpose of
\ncalculation of compensation in
\nrespect of officers shall be
\nnotionally on revised pay scales of
\nofficers, as approved by the Board
\nof Directors\/Government.\n<\/p>\n
 ii)….\n<\/p>\n
iii)…\n<\/p>\n
iv) Arrears of salary\/wage
\nrevision, shall however, become
\npayable only when company generates
\nadequate surplus through improved
\nproductivity ‘and profitability to
\nthe satisfaction of Administrative
\nMinistry.’<\/p>\n
 8. The aforesaid Sub-clause 4 is also being
\nreproduced because it has relevance when the matter in
\nquestion will be considered.\n<\/p>\n
 9. The learned senior counsel has also referred to
\ncertain proceedings before the BIFR of 1.2.2001 to
\ncontend that even BIFR was of the view that VSS
\nextended to the company was an indication to the staff
\nthat the company was to be closed down in due course
\nand was a sort of a threat that in case the employees
\ndid not accept the VSS they would be paid retrenchment
\ndues. The BIFR observed that the Government could not
\nunilaterally decide this matter.\n<\/p>\n
 10. Ms. Tamali Wad, learned counsel for respondent
\nNo. 1, on the other hard, has contended that he prayers
\nmade in the writ petition have to be seen and no
\ndirections can be issued in favor of the petitioner on
\nthe existing prayers. Learned counsel has further
\ncontended that it is for the first time in rejoinder
\nthat a reference has been made to different schemes of
\nvoluntary separation retirement of other public sector
\ncompanies though this was not the case set out in the
\npetition. Learned counsel has referred to (iv) para of
\nthe Note referred above to contend that if the two
\nclauses of the Note are read together it would be
\napparent that the arrears of salary\/wages would become
\npayable in that case only when the company generates
\nadequate surplus. The learned counsel also referred to
\nthe office memorandum dated 14.1.99 issued by the
\nMinistry of Industries in respect of policy for the 6th
\nround of wages negotiation in public sector enterprises
\nwhere in para 2 it is stated that as regards sick units
\nregistered under the BIFR until BIFR approves revival
\nplans in which provision shave been made for additional
\nexpenditure on account of pay revision, no pay revision
\nwould be allowed to the employees of such enterprises.\n<\/p>\n
 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
\nlength.\n<\/p>\n
 12. In my considered view the illustration of terms
\nof voluntary retirement scheme of other public sector
\nenterprises would not be directly relevant to the case
\nof respondent No. 2. Each company will have its own
\nfinancial calculations and a scheme has to be devised
\nkeeping in mind the financial position of that company.
\nThere may be situations where in one particular scheme
\nadditional emoluments are paid but they may be deferred
\ndepending on the amounts generated as in the case
\nmentioned above. These are matters of weighing the
\neconomic condition of a particular company and no
\nuniform pattern can be made in respect of the same.\n<\/p>\n
 13. In the earlier order dated 16.1.2002 it was
\nalready noted that present writ petition is really
\nrelated to two reliefs. In so far as the second relief
\nis concerned the same is based on a package as was
\ndirected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA 30 in Writ
\nPetition No. 4677\/85 dated 31.12.96. The said package
\nwas in the peculiar facts of that case as units were
\ndirected to be shifted from the existing places being
\npolluting units. The package was applicable not only
\nto the unit of respondent No. 2 but also to all such
\npolluting units. The said direction can by no means be
\nmade applicable to the issue of general viability of
\nrespondent No. 2 unit nor can that form the basis for
\nthe grant of any voluntary separation scheme or
\notherwise.\n<\/p>\n
 14. The first relief claimed in the writ petition is
\nfor extension of time for voluntary separation scheme.
\nAdmittedly, the petitioner and other employees applied
\nunder the said scheme, have been considered under the
\nsaid scheme and have availed of the benefits of the
\nsaid scheme. It may, however, be noted that the said
\nscheme was availed of without prejudice to the rights
\nand contentions of the petitioner in terms of the order
\ndated 12.1.2001.\n<\/p>\n
 15. The contention of learned senior counsel for the
\npetitioner that the benefit of 1997 wages should be
\ngiven to the petitioners cannot be sustained as
\nadmittedly that is not in the package offered under the
\nVSS scheme. Not only this respondent No. 2 is before
\nthe BIFR and in terms of the office memorandum dated
\n14.1.99 the revision of wages was subject to the
\nprovisions to be made for additional expenditure on
\naccount of such pay revision where companies like
\nrespondent No. 2 were before the BIFR.\n<\/p>\n
 16. It may also be noted that during the pendency of
\nthe present writ petition the proceedings before the
\nBIFR have been concluded and have culminated in an
\norder dated 7.12.2000.\n<\/p>\n
 17. It may be in the end noted that these are
\nmatters of economic consideration working out packages
\ntaking the overall health of the company in
\nconsideration. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme
\nCourt had the occasion recently to consider the case of
\nDisinvestment in the case of  BALCO Employees’
\nUnion (Registered) v. Union of India<\/a> 2001 (8) SCALE\n<\/p>\n
541. The relevancy of the said judgment is to the
\nextent as to what is the scope of enquiry by the courts
\nin the matters relating to economics and functioning of
\nthe companies. While dealing with the rights of the
\nemployees the Supreme court observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “47. process of disinvestment is a policy
\ndecision involving complex economic factors. The
\nCourts have consistently refrained from
\ninterfering with economic decisions as it has
\nbeen recognised that economic expediencies lack
\nadjudicative disposition and unless the economic
\ndecision, based on economic expediencies, is
\ndemonstrated to be so violative of constitutional
\nor legal limits on power or so abhorrent to
\nreason, that the Courts would decline to
\ninterfere. In matters relating to economic
\nissues, the Government has, while taking a
\ndecision, right to “trial and error” as long as
\nboth trial and error are bonafide and within
\nlimits of authority. There is no case made out
\nby the petitioner that the decision to disinvest
\nin BALCO is in any way capricious, arbitrary,
\nillegal or uninformed. Even though the workers
\nmay have interest in the manner in which the
\nCompany is conducting its business, inasmuch as
\nits policy decision may have an impact on the
\nworkers’ rights, nevertheless it is an incidence
\nof service for an employee to accept a decision
\nof the employer which has been honestly taken and
\nwhich is not contrary to law. Even a government
\nservant, having the protection of not only
\nArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but also
\nof Article 311, has no absolute right to remain
\nin service. For example, apart from cases of
\ndisciplinary action, the service of government
\nservants can be terminated if posts are
\nabolished. If such employee cannot make a
\ngrievance based on part III of the Constitution or
\nArticle 311 then it cannot stand to reason that
\nlike the petitioners, non-government employees
\nworking in a company which by reason of judicial
\npronouncement may be regarded as a State for the
\npurpose of Part III of the Constitution, can
\nclaim a superior or a better right than a
\ngovernment servant and impugn it’s change of
\nstatus. In taking of a policy decision in
\neconomic matters at length, the principles of
\nnatural justice have no role to play. While it
\nis expected of a responsible employer to take all
\naspects into consideration including welfare of
\nthe labour before taking any policy decision
\nthat, by itself, will not entitle the employees
\nto demand a right of hearing or consultation
\nprior to the taking of the decision.\n<\/p>\n
 48. Merely because the workman may have
\nprotection of Articles 14 and 16 of the
\nConstitution, by regarding BALCO as a State, it
\ndoes not mean that the erstwhile sole shareholder
\nviz., Government had to give the workers prior
\nnotice of hearing before deciding to disinvest.
\nThere is no principle of natural justice which
\nrequires prior notice and hearing to persons who
\nare generally affected as a class by a economic
\npolicy decision of the Government. If the
\nabolition of a post pursuant to a policy decision
\ndoes not attract the provisions of Article 311 of
\nthe Constitution as held in State of Haryana v.
\nShri Des Raj Sangar and Anr.,<\/a> (1976) 2 SSC
\n844, on the same parity of reasoning, the policy
\nof disinvestment cannot be faulted if as a result
\nthereof the employees lose their rights or
\nprotection under Articles 14 and 16 of the
\nConstitution. In other words, the existence of
\nrights of protection under Articles 14 and 16 of
\nthe Constitution cannot possibly have the effect
\nof vetoing the Government’s right to disinvest.
\nNor can the employees claim a right of continuous
\nconsultation at different stages of the
\ndisinvestment process. If the disinvestment
\nprocess is gone through without contravening any
\nlaw, then the normal consequences as a result of
\ndisinvestment must follow.”\n<\/p>\n
 18. It is thus apparent from a reading of the
\naforesaid judgment that the Supreme Court has held that
\nemployment of the employees with a public sector
\nenterprise is an incidence of the service of the
\nemployee and the employee would thus be bound by the
\ndecision taking honestly which is not contrary to law.
\nIt is further held that there is not right in the
\nemployees to demand hearing or consultation prior to
\nthe taking of the decision.\n<\/p>\n
 19. The petitioner is thus not entitled to any of
\nthe reliefs claimed in the petition. In view of the
\naforesaid facts and circumstances I am of the
\nconsidered view that no case is made out for
\ninterference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
 20. Dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 690, 97 (2002) DLT 347, 2003 (97) FLR 709, 2003 (1) SLJ 200 Delhi Author: S K Kaul Bench: S K Kaul JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-206182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - 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\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2\" \/>\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=\"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-24T04:27:17+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-24T04:27:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2\"},\"wordCount\":2288,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2\",\"name\":\"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-24T04:27:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - 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\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-24T04:27:17+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-24T04:27:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2"},"wordCount":2288,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2","name":"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-24T04:27:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-kumar-r-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-26-february-2002-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sree Kumar R. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 26 February, 2002"}]},{"@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\/206182","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=206182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}