{"id":2135,"date":"1976-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976"},"modified":"2017-09-05T10:09:39","modified_gmt":"2017-09-05T04:39:39","slug":"p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976","title":{"rendered":"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And … on 9 December, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And … on 9 December, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 854, \t\t 1977 SCR (2) 365<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP. RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/12\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  854\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 365\n 1977 SCC  (1) 561\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Constitution of India, Articles 16, 32 and 311,  Govern-\n\tment servant's compulsory retirement, whether violates\tArt.\n\t16--Ban\t on  re-employment by  semiGovernment  Institutions,\n\twhether within the scope of Art. 32--Availability of  alter-\n\tnative remedy.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    On the completion of their 25 years of qualifying  serv-\n\tice,  the  appellants were compulsorily\t retired  in  public\n\tinterest,  and\twere to receive 3 months salary in  lieu  of\n\tnotice.\t  Thereafter,  the respondent  Government  passed  a\n\tgeneral\t order\tforbidding  re-employment  of\tcompulsorily\n\tretired\t persons  in   semi-Government\tinstitutions.\t The\n\tappellants  filed, writ petitions under Art. 32 of the\tCon-\n\tstitution  challenging the compulsory retirement  orders  as\n\tviolative of Art. 16 and the ban on such re-employment as  a\n\tstigma under Art. 311.\n\tDismissing the petitions, the Court,\n\t    HELD: (1) Article 16 does not prohibit the\tprescription\n\tof  reasonable rules for compulsory retirement.\t The  provi-\n\tsion for compulsory retirement in public interest after\t the\n\tcompletion  of\ta certain period of  qualifying\t service  or\n\tattainment  of\ta  certain age, applies\t to  all  Government\n\tservants  and  as such it is not open  to  challenge  either\n\tunder Art. 14 or under Art. 16, and the individual  applica-\n\ttion  of  the order in a given case cannot offend  Art.\t 16.\n\t[367-D-H]\n\tT. C. Shivacharana Singh V. State of Mysore A.I.R.<\/a> 1965 S.C.\n\t280, applied.\n\t    Union  of  India  v. Col. J.N. Sinha, &  Anr.<\/a>  [1971]  1\n\tS.C.R.\t791;  Tara Singh etc. v. State of Rajasthan  &\tOrs.\n\t[19753\t3 S.C.R. 1002,\tand  B.\t Narayana Murthy &  Ors.  v.\n\tState  of   Andhra  Pradesh<\/a> etc. [1971]\t Supp.\tS.C.R.\t741,\n\treferred to.\n\t    (2) The Government order forbidding\t re-appointment\t  of\n\tcompulsorily retired persons as a stigma within the  meaning\n\tof Article 311 is not an infringement of fundamental rights,\n\tand  the enforcement of violation of  Article  311 does\t not\n\tcome within the scope of Article 32.  The ban is not against\n\tanyone\tindividually  and has a reasonable  basis  and\tsome\n\trelation to the suitability for employment or appointment to\n\tan office.  [367A-B,369 A-B]\n\t    Krishna  Chander  Nayar  v.\t Chairman,  Central  Tractor\n\tOrganisation & Ors.<\/a> [1962] 3 S.C.R. 187; Shyam Lal v.  State\n\tof  U.P. [1955] 1 S.C.R.  26;  Tata Engineering and  Locomo-\n\ttive  Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner  of  Commercial\n\tTaxes  & Anr. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 751 and Hukumchand Mills\tLtd.\n\tv.  The State of Madhya Bharat & Anr.<\/a> [1964] 6\tS.C.R.\t857,\n\treferred to.\n\t    (3) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has by an  adminis-\n\ttrative\t  order\t constituted  a review\tcommittee  for\teach\n\tdepartment to review orders of retirement it public interest\n\tand to revoke and modify the same, if necessary. petitioners\n\tmade  representations to the review committee, and  are\t not\n\tjustified in applying to this Court.  [370A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 97 of 1976.
\n\t(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).\n<\/p>\n
\t     S.\t Ramchandra Rao and B. Kanta Rao for the  appellants
\n\tin W.P. No. 97\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\t     S.\t Ramachandra Rao and ,A. Subba Rao, for\t the  appel-
\n\tlants in W.P. No. 114\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\t366<\/span><\/p>\n
\t     Niren De, Attorney General, P.p. Rao, Sr. Advocate\t and
\n\tT.V.S.\tNarasimhachari,\t for  the respondents  in  W.P.\t No.
\n\t97\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\t     P.\t Parmeshwara Rao, and G. Narayana Rao, for  respond-
\n\tents  in W.P. No. 114\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t     RAY, C.J. These writ petitions challenge the compulsory
\n\tretirement of the petitioners.\tThe petitioners were retired
\n\tcompulsorily under order dated 23 September, 1975.
\n\t    The\t order\tdated 23 September 1975 in the case  of\t the
\n\tfirst  petitioner  in writ petition No. 97 of  1976  may  be
\n\treferred to as typical of orders in the case of other  peti-
\n\ttioners.  This order stated first that the said first  peti-
\n\ttioner\tcompleted  25 years of qualifying  service  on\t24th
\n\tJuly, 1975.  The order next stated that the Commissioner  of
\n\tPolice being the authority to make a substantive appointment
\n\tto the post of Inspector of Police is of opinion that it  is
\n\tin  public interest to retire the persons mentioned  in\t the
\n\torder.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t order\tthereafter states that in  exercise  of\t the
\n\tpowers conferred by Clause (a) of sub-rule (2)\/sub-rule 2(A)
\n\tread   with  Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of rule 3   of\t the
\n\tAndhra\tPradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961\/sub-rule (1)
\n\tof  rule  2\/rule 3 read with sub-rule (1) of rule 2  of\t the
\n\tAndhra\tPradesh\t Government  Servants  Premature  Retirement
\n\tRules,\t1975,  the Commissioner of Police directs  that\t the
\n\tperson mentioned in the order shall retire in public  inter-
\n\test from service with effect from the date of service of the
\n\torder  and  that he shall be paid a sum\t equivalent  to\t the
\n\tamount\tpay  and allowances for 3 months in lieu  of  notice
\n\tcalculated at the same rate at which he was drawing  immedi-
\n\tately before the date on which the order is served on him.
\n\t    The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed a general  order
\n\tdated  28 November, 1975. In that  Government order  it\t  is
\n\tstated\tthat in several Government orders  recited  therein,
\n\torders for the premature retirement of the Government  serv-
\n\tants in public interest had been issued in those cases after
\n\tgiving 3 months previous notice in writing or after giving 3
\n\tmonths salary in lieu of such notice.  The 28 November, 1975
\n\torder next states that an instance came to the notice of the
\n\tGovernment  that a Government servant after  compulsory\t re-
\n\ttirement as per orders mentioned above was re-appointed\t  in
\n\ta  cooperative institution as  executive  officer.    Though
\n\tthe  reappointment of the incumbent was in the\tSemi-Govern-
\n\tment Institution, his re-appointment was stated to be irreg-
\n\tular  and  contrary  to\t the intention of the Government  in
\n\tretiring corrupt and  inefficient  persons.  The  Government
\n\torder directed that all the Departments of the\tSecretariat,
\n\tall  Heads  of Department, and all Collectors  etc.,  should
\n\tensure that on no account persons who are retired premature-
\n\tly in pursuance of orders issued by the Government should be
\n\tre-instated  or re-appointed  in  any\tSemi-Government\t  or
\n\tQuasi-Government Institutions.\n<\/p>\n
\t367<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    The\t petitioners  challenged the  compulsory  retirement
\n\torders\tas  violation of Article 16.  The  petitioners\talso
\n\tchallenged the Government order forbidding re-appointment of
\n\tcompulsorily  retired persons in Semi-Government  or  Quasi-
\n\tGovernment  Institutions as a  stigma within the meaning  of
\n\tArticle 311.\n<\/p>\n
\t    At\tthe outset it should be stated that  enforcement  of
\n\tviolation  of Article 311 does not come within the scope  of
\n\tArticle 32.  The challenge to the Government order   forbid-
\n\tding   re-appointment  of compulsorily retired persons as  a
\n\tstigma within the meaning of Article 311 is, therefore,\t not
\n\tan infringement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t petitioners  challenged the  orders  of  compulsory
\n\tretirement as an infraction 0f Article 16.  It is not  known
\n\thow  the petitioners have been discriminated  against  other
\n\tpersons because no such person is impleaded as a  respondent
\n\tand there are no allegations to that effect.
\n\t    During the subsistence of the Presidential Order  issued
\n\tunder Article 359(1 ) it is not competent to invoke  Article
\n\t14  for enforcement of any fundamental rights.\tArticles  14
\n\tand  16 are  to\t a certain extent overlapping in  regard  to
\n\trights of equality.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Equality  of  opportunity for all  citizens\t in  matters
\n\trelating  to  employment is not violated by  provisions\t for
\n\tcompulsory  retirement\tof  Government\tservants  in  public
\n\tinterest after the completion  of a certain period of quali-
\n\tfying service or attainment of a certain age. This Court has
\n\tconsistently taken the view that compulsory retirement\tdoes
\n\tnot involve any civil consequences.   See Union of India  v.
\n\tCol. J. N. Sinha and Another<\/a>(1) and Tara Singh etc. v. State
\n\tof Rajasthan and Ors.(3)
\n\t    A  writ petition under Article 32 can lie only  for\t in-
\n\tfringement of fundamental  rights.  See\t B. Narayana  Murthy
\n\tand  Ors.  etc.\t  v. State of Andhra  Pradesh  etc.(3)\t The
\n\tgeneral order for compulsory retirement is applicable to all
\n\temployees.  The\t individual application of the\torder  in  a
\n\tgiven case cannot offend Article 16.  It cannot be suggested
\n\tthat  an order for compulsory retirement in the case of\t one
\n\tperson\tis  denial of equality of  opportunity\trelating  to
\n\temployment because another person in employment has not been
\n\tcompulsorily retired.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Article 16 does not prohibit the prescription of reason-
\n\table  rules for compulsory retirement.\tA question arose  in
\n\tT.C.  Shivacharana  Singh v. State of Mysore<\/a> (4)  whether  a
\n\trule  providing\t for compulsory\t premature  retirement\tfrom
\n\tGovernment service violates Article 16. This Court said that
\n\tthe  law  in relation to the validity  of  rules  permitting
\n\tcompulsory premature retirement from Government ser-
\n\t(1) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 791.\t(2) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 1002.
\n\t(3) [1971] Supp S.C.R. 741.\t(4) A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 280.\n<\/p>\n
\t368<\/span><\/p>\n
\tvice  is well-settled by prior decision of this Court  which
\n\tdoes not require to be reconsidered.  The ratio is that\t the
\n\tprovision  for\tcompulsory  retirement\tin  public  interest
\n\tapplies\t to  all Government servants and as such it  is\t not
\n\topen  to challenge either under Article 14 or under  Article\n<\/p>\n
\t16.
\n\t    In Shyam Lal v. Stale of U.P.(1) the appellant had\tbeen
\n\tcompulsorily retired.  The order was challenged as violating
\n\tArticle\t 311.  This Court held that there is no\t stigma\t in-
\n\tvolved\t in  compulsory retirement.   Compulsory  retirement
\n\tdoes not amount to a dismissal or removal and, therefore, it
\n\tis not within the vice of Article 311.\n<\/p>\n
\t    One of the petitioners, namely, the first in writ  peti-
\n\ttion  No.  97 of 1976, challenged the  order  of  compulsory
\n\tretirement  on the ground that he did not complete 25  years
\n\tof  service.  He alleged  that\the was appointed on 10\tSep-
\n\ttember, 1952 and, therefore, the order of compulsory retire-
\n\tment  dated  23 September, 1975 is bad.\t The  State  on\t the
\n\tother hand contends that the correct date of appointment  of
\n\tthe  first petitioner is 25 July, 1950.\t In  writ  petitions
\n\tthe Court does not go into disputed questions of fact,\tlike
\n\tdate  of appointment as in the present case.  In Tata  Engi-
\n\tneering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commission-
\n\ter  of Commercial Taxes & Anr. (a) this Court said that\t the
\n\texercise of jurisdiction in writ matters is not desirable if
\n\tfacts  have to be found on evidence.  This Court   has\talso
\n\tsaid  that there may be exceptions.  One such  exception  is
\n\twhen  action  is taken under an invalid law  or\t arbitrarily
\n\twithout\t the sanction of law.  In the present case there  is
\n\tno aspect  of  either kind.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Further  it has to be observed that in the present\twrit
\n\tpetitions several petitioners have combined as\tpetitioners.
\n\tTheir  causes of action are separate and independent.\tEach
\n\tis  alleged  to be  an instance of individual  assertion  of
\n\tconstitutional right in regard to facts and circumstances of
\n\teach  case.  Where several petitioners combine\tfor  alleged
\n\tviolation  of their rights, it is difficult for court to  go
\n\tinto  each and every individual case.  In the  present\tcase
\n\tthe  affidavit evidence on behalf of the State is  preferred
\n\tand,  therefore,  the first petitioner\tcannot\tagitate\t the
\n\tquestion of disputed date of appointment.
\n\t    In\tKrishna Chandra Nayar v. Chairman,  Central  Tractor
\n\tOrganization and Others(3) this Court considered the imposi-
\n\ttion  of  a ban against one man, namely, the  petitioner  in
\n\tthat case from being ever taken into Government service.  He
\n\twas a temporary servant and his services were terminated  by
\n\tgiving\thim  pay and allowances in lieu of  notice  for\t one
\n\tmonth.\t This Court found that case to be one  of  arbitrary
\n\timposition of ban against the employment or appointment\t one
\n\tindividual to an office.\n<\/p>\n
\t (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 26.\t  (2) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 751.
\n\t (3) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 187.\n<\/p>\n
\t369<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    Krishna  Chander’s\tcase  (supra) is of no\taid  to\t the
\n\tpetitioners in the present case.  The ban is not  challenged
\n\there.  In  Krishna Chander’s case (supra) the ban was  chal-
\n\tlenged\tas an arbitrary act against one individual.  In\t the
\n\tpresent case the ban is not  against anyone individually but
\n\tit  is\tnot to employ in Quasi-Government service  or  Semi-
\n\tGovernment  service,  persons who are  compulsorily  retired
\n\tfrom Government service.  The ban has a reasonable basis and
\n\thas  some  relation  to the suitability\t for  employment  or
\n\tappointment  to\t an office.  When compulsory  retirement  is
\n\tmade in public interest it will be an exercise in   futility
\n\tif   Government\t servants who are compulsorily\tretired\t are
\n\tagain  employed\t in Government\tservice\t or  Semi-Government
\n\tservice or Quasi-Government service.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t petitioners  challenged the orders  for  compulsory
\n\tretirement  also  on the ground that reference\tto  so\tmany
\n\trules  was made and, therefore, it was not possible for\t the
\n\tpetitioners  to\t know under what provision  the\t orders\t for
\n\tcompulsory retirement had been made.  It is not open to\t the
\n\tpetitioners  to\t challenge the orders on  that\tground.\t The
\n\torders\tspecifically mention that compulsory  retirement  is
\n\tmade  in public interest.  The State affidavit evidence\t  is
\n\tthat   petitioners  No. 4 and 5 in writ petition No.  97  of
\n\t1976 are governed by Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations and
\n\tthe  rest of the petitioners are governed by Andhra  Pradesh
\n\tLiberalised  Pension Rules, 1961. Rule 292 of the  Hyderabad
\n\tCivil Service Regulations and sub-rule (2) (a) of rule B  of
\n\tthe  Andhra  Pradesh  Liberalised Pension  Rules,  1961\t are
\n\tsimilar.   Both the rules confer power on the  authority  to
\n\trequire Government servant to retire in the public  interest
\n\tfrom  service on the date on which he completes 25 years  of
\n\tqualifying service or attains 50 years of age.\tRule 2(1) of
\n\tthe Andhra Pradesh Government Servants’ Premature Retirement
\n\tRules, 1975  is also worded in similar language.  The  word-
\n\ting of the  rules  relating to retirement in public interest
\n\tis identical in all the three sets of rules mentioned above.
\n\t    The mere fact that three different rules. were mentioned
\n\tin  the impugned orders without scoring out the rules  which
\n\tare not applicable to a petitioner in one case cannot be any
\n\tgrievance for the reason that in each case the relevant rule
\n\tis  identically\t worded.  The omission on the  part  of\t the
\n\tofficers competent to retire the petitioners in not  scoring
\n\tout  the  rules\t which are inapplicable\t to   a\t  particular
\n\tindividual  does  not render the order bad.  The  reason  is
\n\tthat one of the rules is applicable to him and the  omission
\n\tto strike out the rules which are not applicable will not in
\n\tany  manner affect the applicability of the rule  mentioned.
\n\tFurther this Court has taken the view that a wrong reference
\n\tto power will not vitiate any action if it can be  justified
\n\tunder  some other power under which the Government can\tlaw-
\n\tfully do the act.  See Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. The State of
\n\tMadhya Bharat and Another<\/a>(1). In the present case the  valid
\n\trule is mentioned in each case.\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 857.\n<\/p>\n
\t370<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    The Government of Andhra Pradesh has by  an\t administra-
\n\ttive  order constituted a review committee for each  depart-
\n\tment  to review orders of retirement in public interest\t and
\n\tto revoke and modify the same, if necessary.  The  petition-
\n\ters  made  representations  to the  review  committee.\t The
\n\tpetitioners yet choose to come to this court.  The petition-
\n\ters are not justified in applying to this court.
\n\t    The\t petitioners  obtained\trules  in  these  two  cases
\n\tduring\tthe  vacation.\tA similar matter  came\tbefore\tthis
\n\tCourt  on  29 April, 1976 and this Court did not  issue\t any
\n\trule.  If the attention of this Court had been drawn to that
\n\torder,\tperhaps\t no  rule would have been  issued  in  these
\n\tmatters.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order,\t1975
\n\tconfers power on the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction\twith
\n\trespect\t to  appointment, allotment or promotion  and  other
\n\tconditions  of\tservice of such persons.  It is\t open  to  a
\n\tperson who complains about an order of compulsory retirement
\n\tto approach the Tribunal in a given case.\n<\/p>\n
\t    For\t the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are\tdis-
\n\tmissed.\t There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t   Petitions\n\tdismissed.\n\t371<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And … on 9 December, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 854, 1977 SCR (2) 365 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: P. RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/12\/1976 BENCH: RAY, […]<\/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-2135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 9 December, 1976 - 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\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 9 December, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-05T04:39:39+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And … on 9 December, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-05T04:39:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2102,\"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\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976\",\"name\":\"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 9 December, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-05T04:39:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And … on 9 December, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 9 December, 1976 - 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\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 9 December, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-05T04:39:39+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And … on 9 December, 1976","datePublished":"1976-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-05T04:39:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976"},"wordCount":2102,"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\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976","name":"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 9 December, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-05T04:39:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-radhakrishna-naidu-others-vs-government-of-andhra-pradesh-and-on-9-december-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And … on 9 December, 1976"}]},{"@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\/2135","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=2135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}