{"id":208887,"date":"2011-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-07-09T08:37:34","modified_gmt":"2015-07-09T03:07:34","slug":"kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/12928\/2011\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \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. 12928 of 2011\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nKAUSHIK\nRATILAL MANDANI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDM DEVNANI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR ANAND SHARMA ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/08\/2011 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.0\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr. Devnani appearing on behalf of the petitioner<br \/>\nand Mr. Anand Sharma, learned AGP  appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent State authorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.0\tThe<br \/>\napplication made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment has<br \/>\nbeen rejected on 19th January, 2006 on the ground that on<br \/>\nthe date of application, petitioner was minor and he had not become<br \/>\nmajor within a period of limitation prescribed in the policy.<br \/>\nTherefore, application for compassionate appointment has been<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.0\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Devnani submitted that the father of the petitioner was<br \/>\nworking as a Tracer with the respondents since many years and expired<br \/>\non 19th September, 2003 during the course of employment.<br \/>\nThe application for compassionate appointment has been made on 3rd<br \/>\nOctober, 2003 by the petitioner as per Government Resolution. The<br \/>\ndate of birth of the petitioner is 8th June, 1986 and<br \/>\ntherefore, on the day of death of father of the petitioner he was<br \/>\nminor and have not become major within a limitation prescribed under<br \/>\nthe policy, and, therefore, application has been rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.0\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Devnani, learned advocate relied upon decision rendered by Division<br \/>\nBench of this Court (Coram: Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Chief Justice S. J.<br \/>\nMukhopadhaya and Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice K. M. Thaker) in Letters Patent<br \/>\nAppeal No.2615 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 13658 of 2009<br \/>\non 14th December, 2010, which has been quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221;\tThe<br \/>\nmatter relates to compassionate appointment. The father of the<br \/>\npetitioner-Late Shri Mahendrasinh Gohil was serving as a Gujarati<br \/>\nTypist in the Panchayat Gram Gruh Nirman &amp; Gram Vikas Department<br \/>\nof the State.  Shri Mahendrasinh Gohil died in harness on 21st<br \/>\nJune 2005. The appellant, who had completed 17 years of age, applied<br \/>\nfor compassionate employment within<br \/>\ntime [ie., six months] on 30th<br \/>\nAugust 2005 with all necessary documents but the respondents rejected<br \/>\nit on 6th<br \/>\nJanuary 2006 on the ground that the applicant was minor. On attaining<br \/>\nmajority ie., 18 years of age on 28th<br \/>\nNovember 2006, the appellant applied afresh<br \/>\nfor compassionate appointment, but this time, it was rejected on the<br \/>\nground that he had not applied within<br \/>\nthe prescribed period of six months. Learned Single Judge having<br \/>\ndismissed the writ<br \/>\npetition, the present Appeal has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant submitted that the application for<br \/>\ncompassionate appointment was preferred within<br \/>\ntime; the appellant having attained majority within<br \/>\none and a half year of the death of his father, there being no delay,<br \/>\ntherefore, the respondents ought to have considered his case on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPer<br \/>\ncontra,<br \/>\nlearned State counsel submitted that initially when the application<br \/>\nwas filed, the appellant was minor and subsequently on attaining the<br \/>\nage of majority when he filed the application, the same being barred<br \/>\nby the period of limitation prescribed,  was rightly rejected by the<br \/>\nauthorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe<br \/>\nhave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis not in dispute that the appellant technically applied<br \/>\nwithin time on 30th<br \/>\nAugust 2005. If he was minor, the matter ought to have been kept<br \/>\npending by the respondents, as he was to attain majority within few<br \/>\nmonths. It is also not in dispute that compassionate employment was<br \/>\nrequired by one of the members of bereaved family.  That ground<br \/>\nhaving not taken in the order of rejection by the respondents, we are<br \/>\nof the view that they should reconsider the case of the appellant for<br \/>\ncompassionate appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\nthe reasons aforestated, while we are setting aside the letter dated<br \/>\n12th<br \/>\nJanuary 2009 issued by the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent\/competent authority and the order dated 24th<br \/>\nFebruary 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication No. 13658\/2009, remit the case to the<br \/>\nrespondents\/competent authority with a direction to consider the case<br \/>\nof the appellant for compassionate appointment on merit within<br \/>\ntwo months from the date of receipt\/production of the copy of this<br \/>\nOrder.\n<\/p>\n<p>   Appeal<br \/>\nis allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction but there<br \/>\nshall be no order as to costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.0\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Devnani, learned advocate also relied upon one recent decision of<br \/>\nMadras High Court in case of Mohanambal vs. Director, Land and<br \/>\nSurvey Department, Kancheepuram District and others Vs. Director,<br \/>\nLand and Survey Department reported in 2011 (2) MLJ 47. The relevant<br \/>\ndiscussion made by Madras High Court in paras:8 to 12 are quoted as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;8.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s mother immediately applied for compassionate appointment<br \/>\nafter the death of petitioner&#8217;s father.  The second respondent having<br \/>\nnot taken the ground, which is now taken in the impugned order, for<br \/>\nrejecting the earlier claim made by the petitioner, I am of the view<br \/>\nthat the reason stated in the impugned order viz. petitioner has not<br \/>\nsubmitted the application within three years from the date of death<br \/>\nof her father, can not be sustained.  This Court directed the<br \/>\npetitioner to produce an income certificate of the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nfamily recently obtained, to verify the financial status of the<br \/>\nfamily as on today.  The learned counsel for the petitioner produced<br \/>\nan income certificate dated<br \/>\n23.11.2010 issued by the Tahsildar, Ambattur, wherein it is stated<br \/>\nthat the petitioner&#8217;s husband is doing cooli work and earning Rs.<br \/>\n2000\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tSimilar<br \/>\nissue was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Syed<br \/>\nKhadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar (2006) 9 SCC 195 wherein also the<br \/>\nSupreme Court considered the fact that the wife of the deceased<br \/>\nhaving applied for compassionate appointment in time and as she was<br \/>\nfound not eligible, the application submitted by the other legal heir<br \/>\nwas directed to be considered even after the lapse of eleven years.<br \/>\nIn paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision the Supreme Court held<br \/>\nthus,<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;5.\tWe<br \/>\n\tare unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State, in<br \/>\n\tthe instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the<br \/>\n\tprescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was<br \/>\n\trejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13<br \/>\n\tyears&#8217; old and the application was rejected after a period of six<br \/>\n\tyears and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by<br \/>\n\tthe authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection, of the<br \/>\n\tapplication he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been<br \/>\n\tvery well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed<br \/>\n\tby the State there is no specific provision as to what should be<br \/>\n\tdone in case the departments are minors and there would be any<br \/>\n\trelaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the<br \/>\n\tprescribed period for submitting application.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.As<br \/>\nthe widow had submitted the application in time, the authorities<br \/>\nshould have considered her application.  As eleven years have passed<br \/>\nshe would have not be in a position to join the government service.<br \/>\nIn our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant should have<br \/>\nbeen considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for the State<br \/>\ncould not point out any other circumstances of this case, we direct<br \/>\nthe respondent authorities to consider the application of the<br \/>\nappellant and give him appropriate appointment within reasonable time<br \/>\nat least within a period of three months.  The appeal is disposed of<br \/>\nin the above terms.  No costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Government advocate cited the decision in Sanjay Kumar Vs.<br \/>\nState of Bihar AIR 2000 SC 2782:(2000) 7 SCC 192:(2000) 1 MLJ 44:<br \/>\n2000-III-LLJ-1004, which has no application to the<br \/>\nfacts in this case as the claimant in the cited case applied for<br \/>\ncompassionate appointment for the first time after eight years.<br \/>\nSimilar claim of compassionate ground appointment was rejected in the<br \/>\ndecision in Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwinikumar Taneja AIR 2004 SC<br \/>\n4155: (2004) 7 SCC 265: 2004-III-LLJ-536 on the ground of<br \/>\nnon existence of financial hardship.  Relief was denied to person in<br \/>\nthe decision in Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009)<br \/>\n6 SCC 481: (2009) 5 MLJ 1284 on the ground that even though a person<br \/>\nwas not found traceable for seven years even thereafter within five<br \/>\nyears, no claim for compassionate appointment was made by the legal<br \/>\nheir.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tSimilar<br \/>\nclaim of the deceased Tamil Najdu Electricity Board Employee was<br \/>\nconsidered and relief granted by the Division Bench of this Court in<br \/>\nIndirani Ammal Vs. Chief Engineer, TNEB W.A.No. 3050 of 2003 dated<br \/>\n8.3.2005 (P. SATHASIVAM, J, (as he then was) and S.K.K, J). The said<br \/>\ndecision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 2039<br \/>\nof 2006 dated 30.3.2010. Another Division Bench of this Court in W.<br \/>\nA. No. 42 of 2007 dated 2.7.2009 also took same view, which was also<br \/>\nconfirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8305 of 2010 dated<br \/>\n6.7.2010.  The contra view taken by another Division Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt was set aside by the Supreme Court in C. Appeal no. 2858-2859<br \/>\nof 2010 dated 30.3.2010.  The said order reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t&#8220;Civil<br \/>\n\t\tappeal No. 2858-2859 of 2010 (arising from SLP (C) No. 5068-5069 of<br \/>\n\t\t2009)  <\/p>\n<p>\t\tLeave<br \/>\n\t\tGranted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\tHeard<br \/>\n\t\tlearned Counsel for the parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\tThese<br \/>\n\t\tappeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High<br \/>\n\t\tCourt of Madras dated 29.9.2006 and subsequent order dated<br \/>\n\t\t25.8.2008 passed in the Review Application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\tThe<br \/>\n\t\tDivision Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the<br \/>\n\t\tlearned Single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed<br \/>\n\t\tcompassionate appointment to the appellant.  The appellant was a<br \/>\n\t\tminor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother<br \/>\n\t\tof the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that<br \/>\n\t\tthe appellant, after becoming major should have been granted<br \/>\n\t\tcompassionate appointment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\tAccordingly,<br \/>\n\t\twe allow these appeals, set aside impugned judgment of the Division<br \/>\n\t\tBench and restore the judgment of the learned Single Judge.  No<br \/>\n\t\tcosts.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>12.\tHere<br \/>\nin this case, the petitioner&#8217;s mother applied for compassionate<br \/>\nappointment within one year and she was not given appointment due to<br \/>\nwant of minimum qualification of eight standard and the petitioner<br \/>\nbeing only other legal heir, pursuing the matter and agitating her<br \/>\nright for all these years.  In the light of the present financial<br \/>\nstatus of the petitioner, the decision in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs.<br \/>\nState of Bihar (Supra) applies to the facts of this case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.0\tIn<br \/>\nlight of the aforesaid observations made by Division Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt as well as considering the decision of the Madras High Court,<br \/>\nit is directed to respondents to reconsider the application made by<br \/>\npetitioner for compassionate appointment and also to reconsider<br \/>\ndecision dated 19th January, 2006 on the basis of policy<br \/>\nwhich was prevailing at the relevant time when the father of the<br \/>\npetitioner died. Let this aspect may be reexamined and also<br \/>\nconsidered that at the time of death of the father of petitioner, the<br \/>\npetitioner being minor naturally could not able to make any<br \/>\napplication for compassionate appointment. The relevant aspect is the<br \/>\nmoment he has become major, he immediately made an application and<br \/>\nthat aspect has not been considered. Let that aspect also may be<br \/>\nreconsidered as per the policy which was prevailing at the relevant<br \/>\npoint of time when the father of the petitioner died within a period<br \/>\nof three months from the date of receiving the copy of the present<br \/>\norder and communicate the decision immediately to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.0\tIn<br \/>\nview of the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is<br \/>\ndisposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.<br \/>\nHowever, in case if ultimate decision is adverse to the petitioner,<br \/>\nit is open for the petitioner to challenge the same before the<br \/>\nappropriate forum in accordance with law. Direct Service is<br \/>\npermitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. Rathod, J.]<\/p>\n<p>Amit<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/12928\/2011 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12928 of 2011 ========================================================= KAUSHIK RATILAL MANDANI &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) [&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-208887","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011 - 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\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-09T03:07:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-09T03:07:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1886,\"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\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-09T03:07:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011 - 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\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-09T03:07:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-09T03:07:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011"},"wordCount":1886,"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\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011","name":"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-09T03:07:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushik-vs-the-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kaushik vs The on 30 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/208887","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=208887"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208887\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}