{"id":211607,"date":"2011-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-27T06:43:58","modified_gmt":"2016-07-27T01:13:58","slug":"hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/13902\/2010\t 15\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 13902 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n \n \n=====================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=====================================================\n \n\nHASMUKHBHAI\nSHANTILAL MEHTA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPRESIDENT\n\/ SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nHEMANG R RAWAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nMr.Maulik G.Nanavati,learned\nASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :\n3, \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\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives
\nservice of notice of Rule for respondent No.3. Notices have been
\nserved upon respondents Nos.1 and 2, but none appears on their
\nbehalf.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBy
\nway of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia, the petitioner assails the impugned judgment of the Gujarat
\nSecondary Education Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short)
\ndated 9-7-2010, rendered in Application No.24 of 2009, whereby the
\nsaid Application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of
\ndelay.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tBriefly
\nstated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially
\nappointed in the Sayaji High School, Vadodara on 3-9-1964, where he
\nworked upto 13-5-1965. After prosecuting further studies, the
\npetitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Sardar Vallabhbhai
\nVidyalaya, Vadodara on 3-7-1967, and he worked at that place upto
\n9-6-1968. The petitioner, thereafter, acquired the qualification of
\nB.Ed. and was appointed as Part-time Teacher in the School run by
\nrespondent No.1. With effect from 15-6-1970, the petitioner was
\nappointed as Full-time Teacher and ever since then, he has been
\nworking in the said School. The case of the petitioner is that he was
\ngiven the pay scale of Rs.440-750 in the year 1973 and the relevant
\nentry regarding pay fixation was made in his Service Book. However,
\nthe petitioner was not given Selection Grade on completion of 15
\nyears of service. He, therefore, filed Application No.801 of 1987
\nbefore the Tribunal, which was allowed and the relevant entry
\nregarding the grant of Selection Grade of Rs.500-900 with effect from
\n13-1-1981 with one additional increment was made in the Service Book
\nof the petitioner. Consequent upon the revision of pay scales, the
\npay of the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs.2000-3500 with
\neffect from 23-2-1989 (at Rs.2375). The petitioner was appointed as
\nPrincipal on 23-2-1989 and, thereafter, there was a further revision
\nin  pay scales  pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th
\nPay Commission. Accordingly the pay of the petitioner was fixed in
\nthe scale of 6500-10,500. The grievance of the petitioner is that as
\nper the Government Resolutions dated 27-10-1977 and 5-1-1965, he was
\nentitled to one additional increment from the date of his promotion
\nas Principal, which  has not been granted to him. Aggrieved thereby,
\nthe petitioner filed the above-mentioned application in the Tribunal,
\nwhich has been rejected on the ground of delay, by the impugned
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tMr.Hemang
\nR.Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner
\nhas submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in dismissing the
\nApplication of the petitioner on the ground of delay is erroneous,
\ninasmuch as the Tribunal has not considered the aspect that the
\npetitioner is agitating for  grant of an additional increment which
\nwould have a direct bearing on his salary.  As the said cause of
\naction is financial, it accrues from month to month, therefore, the
\nTribunal could not have rejected the application on the ground of
\ndelay, as the cause would still survive. In support of the above
\nsubmissions, the learned  advocate for the petitioner has relied upon
\nthe following judgments:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tState
\nof Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava,<\/a> \t2009(13)SCALE 329<\/p>\n
(b)\tM.R.Gupta
\nv. Union of India,<\/a> (1995)5 SCC 628<\/p>\n
(c)\tUnion
\nof India v. Tarsem Singh,<\/a> (2008)8 SCC 648<\/p>\n
5.\tMr.Maulik
\nG.Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that
\nin view of the principles of law enunciated in judgments rendered by
\nthe Supreme Court, this Court may pass appropriate orders. However,
\nthe learned Assistant Government Pleader has contented that in case
\nthe Court is inclined to accept the plea made by the petitioner, the
\nclaim for recovery of the arrears of the increment may be restricted
\nto a reasonable period of time.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAt
\nthis stage, it would be fruitful to look into the legal position
\nregarding whether the cause of the petitioner, being one for grant of
\narrears of an additional increment, would  be hit by delay and
\nlaches.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn
\nState of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava (Supra)<\/a> it is
\nheld that:\n<\/p>\n
“14.\tThe
\nappellants contended that the claims were therefore barred by
\nlimitation. It was pointed out that the respondents were paid NPA at
\na fixed rate as stipulated in the appointment orders and NPA was
\nincreased only when it was revised by Government orders from time to
\ntime; that respondents accepted such NPA without protest; and that
\ntherefore, they cannot, after periods varying from 5 to 15 years,
\nchallenge        the fixation of NPA or contend that they are
\nentitled to NPA at a higher rate, that is 25% of their pay. We cannot
\nagree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or
\nany allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the
\ndoctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when
\nthe salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action,
\nbased on continuing wrong. Though the lesser payment may be a
\nconsequence of the error that was committed at the time of
\nappointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the
\nRules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected
\nmerely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years
\nprior to the claim for correct payment. But in respect of grant of
\nconsequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the
\nprinciple relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply.
\nTherefore the consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to
\nbe restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the
\noriginal application. [See: M.R. Gupta vs.Union of India – 1995 (5)
\nSCC 628, and Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh<\/a> 2008 (8) SCC
\n648]Conclusion :”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\nM.R.Gupta v. Union of India (Supra), the<\/a>
\nappellant therein had filed an application before the Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal after 11 years for proper fixation of pay  as
\non the date of his joining the Railway Service. The Supreme Court
\nheld as under:\n<\/p>\n
“5.\n<\/p>\n
Having heard  both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has
\nmissed the  real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The
\nappellant’s grievance that his pay fixation was not
\nin accordance with the rules, was the assertion of  a continuing
\nwrong against him which gave
\nrise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid  a salary
\nwhich was not computed in
\naccordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a
\nfresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly
\nsalary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It
\nis  no doubt true that if the appellant’s claim is found correct on
\nmerits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly
\nfixed pay scale  in  the  future and the question of  limitation
\nwould  arise  for  recovery  of  the arrears for the past period. In
\nother words, the appellant’s claim, if  any, for  recovery of
\narrears calculated  on the basis of  difference in the pay which has
\nbecome time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled
\nto proper fixation  of  his  pay in  accordance with  rules  and  to
\ncessation of  a continuing  wrong if  on merits his claim is
\njustified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him,
\nsuch as, promotion etc. would also
\nbe subject to the defence of laches etc. to disentitle him to those
\nreliefs. The pay fixation can  be made\tonly on the  basis of
\nthe situation existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any
\nother  consequential relief which may  be barred by his laches and
\nthe bar  of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay
\nfixation the  application cannot be treated as time barred since it
\nis based on a recurring cause of action.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nTribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant’s claim  as
\n‘one time action’ meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong
\nbased on a recurring cause of action. The  claim to be paid the
\ncorrect salary computed on the basis  of proper pay fixation, is a
\nright which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be
\nexercised at the time  of each payment of the salary when the
\nemployee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with
\nthe rules. This  right of a Government servant to be paid the correct
\nsalary throughout his tenure according to computation made in
\naccordance with the rules, is akin to the right of redemption which
\nis an  incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the
\nmortgage itself subsists, unless the equity of redemption is
\nextinguished. It is  settled that the right of redemption is of this
\nkind. (See Thota China Subba Rao  vs. Mattapalli Raju)”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn Union
\nof India v. Tarsem Singh (Supra),<\/a>
\ntaking the same view, the Supreme Court has held, after discussing
\nthe relevant judgments on this point,that:\n<\/p>\n
“7.\tTo
\nsummarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected
\non the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a
\nwrit petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an
\napplication to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to
\nthe said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a
\nservice related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be
\ngranted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with
\nreference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if
\nsuch continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But
\nthere is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in
\nrespect of any order or administrative decision which related to or
\naffected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue
\nwould affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will
\nnot be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or
\nre-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of
\ndelay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the
\nclaim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc.,
\naffecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of
\nlaches\/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential
\nrelief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the
\nprinciples relating to recurring\/successive wrongs will apply. As a
\nconsequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief
\nrelating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the
\ndate of filing of the writ petition.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tAdmittedly,
\nthe petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal after 10
\nyears. The Tribunal has, in paragraph 5 of its judgment and order,
\naccepted on merits, that the case of the petitioner (and others
\nbefore it) is covered in his favour by its own judgment in another
\nmatter. However, it has proceeded to reject the application of the
\npetitioner solely on the ground that there is a delay of 10 years.
\nAccording to the Tribunal, though  no prescribed period of limitation
\nis provided for in the Act under which the Tribunal is constituted,
\nor by any Rules or Regulations applicable to it, public policy
\ndemands that a litigant should approach the said forum within a
\nreasonable time.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe
\nCourt may now examine the above-stated reasons given by the Tribunal,
\nin the light of the settled legal position emerging from the
\nabove-quoted judgments of the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tFrom
\nthe  position of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court, as above,
\nit is clear that though the petitioner has approached the Tribunal
\nafter 10 years, his claim would fall in the Exception to the
\nprinciple of delay and laches,  as it relates to a continuing wrong.
\nThe only grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been granted
\nthe  additional increment with effect from the date on which he was
\npromoted as Principal. This, therefore, gives him a cause of action
\nevery time he is paid salary, making it a recurring cause of action,
\nrenewed from month to month. As  no right of any third party is
\ninvolved or affected, the  ground of delay could not have been
\npressed into service by the Tribunal  and the application could not
\nhave been rejected on this ground though, on merits, the Tribunal has
\nstated that the case of the petitioner is covered by its own judgment
\nin Application No.243 of 2006 decided on 13-5-2010, in his favour.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tConsidering
\nthat the cause pleaded by the petitioner involves recurring monetary
\nbenefits, it would not be hit by delay and laches, though such delay
\ncan be taken into consideration while granting arrears of the
\nfinancial benefit, by limiting the said benefit to a reasonable
\nperiod of time. In the considered view of this Court, the Tribunal
\nhas committed an error by entering into the arena of “public
\npolicy”, while rejecting the application of the petitioner. The
\nTribunal has granted the benefit claimed by the petitioner to other
\napplicants before it by the very same judgment and has also agreed
\nthat, on merits the petitioner is entitled to the same. As the
\nrejection of the application on the ground of delay is erroneous,
\nresultantly, the claim of the petitioner ought to be granted.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tFor
\nthe aforestated reasons, as the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is
\nnot in consonance with  settled principles of law, as enunciated by
\nthe Supreme Court, the said judgment qua the petitioner only,
\nis hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to
\ngrant the benefit of one additional increment to the petitioner.
\nHowever, it is clarified  that the arrears of the amount so payable
\nto the petitioner, insofar as it affects his pensionary benefits,
\nshall be restricted to a period of three years from the date of
\nfiling the Application before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe
\npetition is partly-allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made
\nabsolute, to the above extent. There shall be no  orders as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
   \t\t           \t(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J)<\/p>\n
arg<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/13902\/2010 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13902 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/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-211607","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011 - 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\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-27T01:13:58+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-27T01:13:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2328,\"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\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-27T01:13:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 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":"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011 - 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\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-27T01:13:58+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-27T01:13:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011"},"wordCount":2328,"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\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011","name":"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-27T01:13:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hasmukhbhai-vs-president-on-21-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hasmukhbhai vs President on 21 February, 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\/211607","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=211607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211607\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}