{"id":210955,"date":"1996-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996"},"modified":"2018-02-28T13:16:27","modified_gmt":"2018-02-28T07:46:27","slug":"jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996","title":{"rendered":"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road &#8230; on 9 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road &#8230; on 9 July, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC  (4) 727, \t  JT 1996 (6)\t463<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N G.T.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Nanavati G.T. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nJAI JAI RAM AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\nBENCH:\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (4) 727\t  JT 1996 (6)\t463\n 1996 SCALE  (5)131\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t    J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nNANAVATI, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This   appeal by special leave is directed against\t the<br \/>\njudgment and  order passed  by the  Allahabad  High Court in<br \/>\nWrit Petition  No. 150\tof 1980\t and Writ Petition Nos. 168,<br \/>\n169, 175,  177, 178, 179, 716, 720, 724, 761, 762, 764, 765,<br \/>\n880, 885 and 892 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question  that arises\tfor  consideration  in\tthis<br \/>\nappeal is  whether disciplinary action could have been taken<br \/>\nagainst the appellants, who are\/were Government servants and<br \/>\nwho have\/had  been sent\t to the\t U.P. State  Road  Transport<br \/>\nCorporation on\tdeputation, by those Government officers who<br \/>\nhave\/had been  sent to\tthe Corporation\t on deputation along<br \/>\nwith the  appellants.There is  no dispute  on the point that<br \/>\nsome of\t the appellants\t were appointed\t by those  officers.<br \/>\nOther officers\twhose actions  have been challenged are\/were<br \/>\nsuperior in  rank or of the same rank but not subordinate in<br \/>\nrank or\t grade to  the appointing  officers of the remaining<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before June  1, 1972, the U.P. Government was running a<br \/>\npassenger transport  service known  as the  U.P.  Government<br \/>\nroadways in  various parts of the State. The said department<br \/>\nundertaking was\t then headed  by Transport  Commissioner. By<br \/>\nnotification dated  10th May,  1954,  issued  by  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  under  Article  309\t of  the  Constitution,\t the<br \/>\nTransport Commissioner,\t the Deputy  Transport Commissioner,<br \/>\nGeneral Managers  and the  Assistant Regional  Managers were<br \/>\nnotified as  appointing\t authorities  in  respect  of  those<br \/>\ncategories  of\tposts  which  were  mentioned  in  the\tsaid<br \/>\nnotification.\tThe   Assistant\t  Regional   Managers\twere<br \/>\ndesignated as  appointing authorities,\tinter alia,  for the<br \/>\ncosts of  conductors and drivers. The appellants are or were<br \/>\nholding\t such\tposts.\tAssistant   Regional  Mangers\twere<br \/>\nsubsequently redesignated  as Assistant General managers and<br \/>\nw.e.f. June  1,\t 1972,\tas  Assistant  Zonal  Managers.\t The<br \/>\nCorporation  was   established\tw.e.f.\t June  1,   1972  by<br \/>\nnotification dated  May 31,  1972 and  all the\tofficers and<br \/>\nemployees connected with the work of roadways were deemed to<br \/>\nbe on  deputation with\tthe Corporation w.e.f  June l, 1972.<br \/>\nIn course of time the Corporation appointed its own officers<br \/>\nand employees  but all\tthose Government  officers and other<br \/>\nemployees who were sent on deputation continued to remain on<br \/>\ndeputation and\twere not  absorbed in  the  service  of\t the<br \/>\nCorporation Disciplinary  actions were taken against some of<br \/>\nthe employees  and they\t were challenged on several grounds.<br \/>\nIn this appeal we are concerned with those employees who had<br \/>\ncontinued as  Government employees  till their services came<br \/>\nto be  terminated or those against whom disciplinary actions<br \/>\nhave been  initiated or were taken by those officers working<br \/>\nin the\tCorporation who were sent on deputation and who also<br \/>\ncontinued to  be on  deputation till  impugned actions\twere<br \/>\ntaken by  them. Some of the employees had filed applications<br \/>\nbefore the  tribunal challenging  the  disciplinary  actions<br \/>\ntaken against  them. Those  applications were allowed by the<br \/>\ntribunal on  the ground that as the applicants had continued<br \/>\nto be on deputation with the Corporation the State continued<br \/>\nto be their employer and, therefore, the Corporation was not<br \/>\ncompetent  to\ttake  disciplinary    action  against  them.<br \/>\nAggrieved by  the orders  passed on  those applications, the<br \/>\nCorporation had\t filed the  above writ petitions except writ<br \/>\npetition No.  150 of  1980 in the Allahabad High Court. Writ<br \/>\npetition   No.\t  150\tof   1980   was\t  filed\t  by   those<br \/>\ndeputationists\/employees who  have  been  suspended  pending<br \/>\ndisciplinary actions  against them.  In that  petition\tthey<br \/>\nhave challenged\t their suspension.  All\t those\tactions\t and<br \/>\norders were  challenged on  the ground\tthat the Corporation<br \/>\nand its officers including those officers who ware\/have been<br \/>\nsent on\t deputation had\t no power to pass such orders as the<br \/>\npetitioners being  Government  servants\t only  the  officers<br \/>\nserving under  Government could have passed such orders. All<br \/>\nthese petitions\t were heard  together by  the Allahabad High<br \/>\nCourt. In  view of  the conflicting  opinions  expressed  by<br \/>\ndifferent Benches  of the  High Court  these petitions\twere<br \/>\nheard by  a full  Bench. The  Full Bench,  by majority (Hari<br \/>\nSwaroop and  T.S. Mishra,  JJ.), held  that the disciplinary<br \/>\nactions taken by those Deputy General Managers, Regional and<br \/>\nAssistant Regional  Managers of the Corporation who are\/were<br \/>\nGovernment servants  and  who  have\/had\t been  sent  to\t the<br \/>\nCorporation  on\t  deputation  had   either   appointed\t the<br \/>\ndelinquent employees or were superior in rank or of the same<br \/>\nrank or\t grade and  were not  subordinate  in  rank  to\t the<br \/>\nappointing officers  and therefore  competent  to  take\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  disciplinary\t actions.  K.N.\t Goyal,\t J.  in\t his<br \/>\nconcurring  judgment   held  that   all\t officers   of\t the<br \/>\nCorporation  who   were\t not  subordinate  in  rank  to\t the<br \/>\nappointing officers  were competent  to\t take  the  impugned<br \/>\ndisciplinary action. The full  Bench  thus decided the point<br \/>\nin favour  of the  Corporation and against the employees and<br \/>\nallowed the  writ petitions  filed against the orders passed<br \/>\nby the\tTribunal. As  the tribunal  had not  decided all the<br \/>\nquestions raised  before it  the  full\tBench  directed\t the<br \/>\ntribunal to decide those cases on other points in accordance<br \/>\nwith law.  So  far  as\tWrit  Petition\tNo.150\tof  1980  is<br \/>\nconcerned the full Bench has directed it to be listed before<br \/>\na Division Bench for disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The view  taken by\t the High Court is challenged on the<br \/>\nground that  the disciplinary actions which have either been<br \/>\ninitiated or  taken are\t by  those  authorities\t which\twere<br \/>\nacting as officers of the Corporation and not as officers of<br \/>\nthe Government\tand as\tthe appellants\tcontinued to  be the<br \/>\nGovernment servants no action could have been taken by those<br \/>\nauthorities.  In  support  of  his  contention\tthe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the  appellants  drew  our  attention  to\t the<br \/>\nnotifications under  which the\tCorporation was\t established<br \/>\nand  the  services  of\tthe  appellants\t were  lent  to\t the<br \/>\nCorporation. He also drew our attention to the Uttar Pradesh<br \/>\nFundamental Rules.  It is, however, not necessary to discuss<br \/>\nthose notifications  or the  rules as it is not disputed now<br \/>\nbefore us that the appellants even after their services were<br \/>\nlent to\t the Corporation  continued  to\t be  the  Government<br \/>\nservants. We  may,  however,  refer  to\t Rule  9(7-B)  which<br \/>\ndefines Government  servant for\t the purposes of those rules<br \/>\nto mean\t a person  appointed to\t a civil  post\tor  a  civil<br \/>\nservice under  the State Government in India, and serving in<br \/>\nconnection with\t the affairs  of the  Uttar  Pradesh,  whose<br \/>\nconditions of  service have been or may be prescribed by the<br \/>\nGovernor under Section 241 (2)(b) of the Act, as it has some<br \/>\nbearing on  one of  the\t submissions  made  by\tthe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for  the appellants.  It is also not in dispute that<br \/>\nas  the\t appellants  were  Government  servants\t even  while<br \/>\nserving under  the Corporation\tthey were  entitled  to\t the<br \/>\nprotection of  Article 311  of the  Constitution.  Like\t the<br \/>\nappellants the\tofficers,  whose  actions\/orders  have\tbeen<br \/>\nchallenged, have\/had  also continued  as Government servants<br \/>\neven though  they  have\/had  been  on  deputation  with\t the<br \/>\nCorporation. Realizing\tthe difficulty in describing them as<br \/>\nofficers of  the Corporation  the learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants submitted that under Rule 9 (7-B) a person can be<br \/>\nsaid to\t be a  Government servant  only if  he is serving in<br \/>\nconnection with\t the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh and as the<br \/>\nsaid officers,\tat the\trelevant time,\twere serving  in the<br \/>\nCorporation which  is an  independent legal entity it cannot<br \/>\nbe said\t that they  were  serving  in  connection  with\t the<br \/>\naffairs of  the Uttar  Pradesh.\t Thus,\tthey  were  not\t the<br \/>\nGovernment servants  when disciplinary\taction was  taken by<br \/>\nthem against  the appellants  and, therefore,  the  impugned<br \/>\nactions taken  or orders  passed by them must be regarded as<br \/>\ninvalid and  illegal. In  our opinion, there is no substance<br \/>\nin this contention. In the first place the definition of the<br \/>\nterm Government\t servant is  for the  purposes of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nrules and,  therefore,\tnot  relevant  for  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\nArticle 311 of the Constitution. Again, a Government servant<br \/>\nremains a  Government  servant\teven  when  he\tis  sent  on<br \/>\ndeputation to  foreign service\tand therefore the definition<br \/>\nof the\tterm Government\t servant  will\tnot  have  the\tsame<br \/>\nmeaning in  the context\t of a  Government  servant  sent  on<br \/>\ndeputation. But\t the learned counsel for the appellants drew<br \/>\nour attention  to the  decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/168102\/\">S.S. Dhanoa<br \/>\nvs. Municipal  Corporation, Delhi<\/a> 1981 (3) SCC 431 wherein a<br \/>\nJoint Commissioner  in the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  whose<br \/>\nservices were  placed at the disposal of the Corporation for<br \/>\nhis appointment\t as a General Manager of Super Bazar was not<br \/>\nconsidered as  a person\t employed  in  connection  with\t the<br \/>\naffairs of  the Union.\tIn that case the Court was concerned<br \/>\nwith the question as to whether such a person can be said to<br \/>\nbe a  &#8216;public servant&#8217;\twithin the meaning of clause Twelfth\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) of\tSection 21 of the Indian Penal Code and was entitled<br \/>\nto the\tprotection of  Section 197  of the  Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1973.  In that  context it  was observed  by this<br \/>\nCourt that Legally speaking, the Super Bazaars are owned and<br \/>\nmanaged by  the Society\t and not  by the  Central Government<br \/>\nand, therefore, the appellant was not employed in connection<br \/>\nwith the  affairs of the Union within the meaning of Section<br \/>\n197 of\tthe Code  of Criminal  Procedure, 1973.\t This  Court<br \/>\npointed out  that the  Joint Commissioner who was deputed to<br \/>\nwork as\t a General Manager of Super Bazar did not answer any<br \/>\nof the\tdescriptions of\t a  &#8216;public  servant&#8217;  mentioned  in<br \/>\nSection 21 of the I.P.C. during his period of deputation and<br \/>\ntherefore was  not entitled to the protection of Section 197<br \/>\nof Code\t of Criminal  Procedure. This  decision,  therefore,<br \/>\ndoes not  support  the\tcontention  raised  by\tthe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for  the appellants.  As we are of the view that the<br \/>\nofficers, who  had taken  the impugned\tdisciplinary actions<br \/>\nagainst the  appellants, were the Government servants at the<br \/>\ntime when  the said  actions were  taken,  the\tdecision  in<br \/>\nKrishna Kumar  Vs. Divisional  Assistant Electrical Engineer<br \/>\nand Others  (,979 (4)  SCC 289)\t is also  of no\t help to the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was  next contented  that the officers who had taken<br \/>\naction\tagainst\t  the  appellants   had\t no  power  to\tmake<br \/>\nappointments in\t Government service  or on civil posts while<br \/>\nthey were on deputation with the Corporation and, therefore,<br \/>\nthey could  not have taken any action against the appellants<br \/>\nin view\t of the\t protection afforded  by Article 311. It was<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tthe authority contemplated by Article 311 is<br \/>\nthe authority which should have power to appoint a person on<br \/>\na civil post under the Union or a State, as the case may be.<br \/>\nWe do  not find\t any  substance\t in  this  contention  also.<br \/>\nArticle 311  gives protection to a member of a civil service<br \/>\ncf the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a<br \/>\nState or to a person holding a civil post under the Union or<br \/>\na  State  against  dismissal  or  removal  by  an  authority<br \/>\nsubordinate to\tthat by\t which he was appointed. Article 311<br \/>\ndoes not  provide that\ta member  of a\tcivil service  or  a<br \/>\nperson holding\ta civil\t post either  under the\t Union or  a<br \/>\nState cannot  be dismissed or removed by an authority except<br \/>\nthe appointing\tauthority. There  is no requirement that the<br \/>\nauthority which\t takes disciplinary  action must continue to<br \/>\nhave the power of making appointment to the civil service or<br \/>\non a  civil post  under the  Union or a State. It can be any<br \/>\nother authority\t so long as it is not subordinate in rank or<br \/>\ngrade to  the authority\t by which  the delinquent Government<br \/>\nservant was  appointed. That  is  the  only  requirement  of<br \/>\nArticle 311  and we  cannot read  anything more\t into it. <a href=\"\/doc\/197643\/\">In<br \/>\nState of  U.P. vs. Ram Naresh Lal<\/a> 1970(3) SCC 173 this Court<br \/>\nhas in\tclear terms  held  that\t there\tis  nothing  in\t the<br \/>\nConstitution which debars a Government from conferring owers<br \/>\non an officer other than the appointing authority to dismiss<br \/>\na Government  servant provided he is not subordinate in rank<br \/>\nto the appointing officer or authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Since the\tonly question  before the  full Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh Court  was whether\t the officers  who  had\t taken\tsuch<br \/>\nactions were  competent to  do so  in view of the protection<br \/>\nafforded by  Article 311  of the Constitution and as that is<br \/>\nthe only  question  which  we  have  to\t decide\t it  is\t not<br \/>\nnecessary to  deal  with  the  decision\t of  this  Court  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/94540\/\">Manager, M\/s.  Pyarchand Kesarimal  Ponwal Bidi\t Factory vs.<br \/>\nOmkar Laxman  Thange<\/a> (1969  (2) SCR 272) wherein it has been<br \/>\nheld that  the right  of dismissal  vests with\tthe employer<br \/>\neven though  the employer  might have lent their services to<br \/>\nthe  third  party,  as\tin  spite  of  Such  arrangement  he<br \/>\ncontinues to be in the employment of the employer. It may be<br \/>\nstated that was a case of private employment. It is also not<br \/>\nnecessary to  deal  with  the  decision\t of  this  Court  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/840793\/\">Marathwada University  vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan<\/a>  (1989<br \/>\n(3) SCC\t 132) as  we are  of the  opinion that\tthe impugned<br \/>\ndisciplinary actions and the judgment of the  High Court can<br \/>\nbe sustained  without reference\t to Section  34 of  the Road<br \/>\nTransport Corporation  Act, 1950  which empowers  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment to  give directions\tto a Corporation established<br \/>\nunder the  Act, inter alia, with  respect to recruitment and<br \/>\nconditions of service of the employees of  the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As\t we  do\t not  find  any\t substance  in\tany  of\t the<br \/>\ncontentions raised  on behalf  of the appellants this appeal<br \/>\nfails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road &#8230; on 9 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 727, JT 1996 (6) 463 Author: N G.T. Bench: Nanavati G.T. (J) PETITIONER: JAI JAI RAM AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road ... on 9 July, 1996 - 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\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road ... on 9 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-28T07:46:27+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\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road &#8230; on 9 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T07:46:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2227,\"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\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996\",\"name\":\"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road ... on 9 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T07:46:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road &#8230; on 9 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road ... on 9 July, 1996 - 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\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road ... on 9 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-28T07:46:27+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\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road &#8230; on 9 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T07:46:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996"},"wordCount":2227,"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\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996","name":"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road ... on 9 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T07:46:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-jai-ram-and-others-vs-the-u-p-state-road-on-9-july-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jai Jai Ram And Others vs The U.P. State Road &#8230; on 9 July, 1996"}]},{"@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\/210955","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=210955"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210955\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}