{"id":213652,"date":"1999-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999"},"modified":"2018-04-25T06:57:35","modified_gmt":"2018-04-25T01:27:35","slug":"shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999","title":{"rendered":"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Thomas<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.Saghir Hamad<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSHRI ALVARO NORONHA FERRIERA &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF  INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/04\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. Thomas, S.Saghir Hamad\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Some Judges whose function was dispensation of justice<br \/>\nhad  to\t approach  the High Court for justice based  on\t the<br \/>\ncelebrated doctrine equal pay for equal work but they were<br \/>\nnon-suited  by\ta Division Bench of that High  Court.\tThey<br \/>\nwere  Judges  of higher judiciary in the subordinate  level.<br \/>\nThey  have now come to the Supreme Court with this appeal by<br \/>\nspecial\t leave.\t  It is interesting that, in the  meanwhile,<br \/>\ntwo  of\t them have become Judges of the same High  Court  of<br \/>\nBombay\tas  efflux  of a decade in between has\tchanged\t the<br \/>\nhierarchiel  status of the parties who initiated this  legal<br \/>\naction.\t When they filed the writ petition in the High Court<br \/>\nthey  were  District and Sessions Judges.  One of  them\t has<br \/>\nsince retired from service but the cause which they espoused<br \/>\nsurvives.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The nub of their grievance is this:  When the scale of<br \/>\npay  of\t their counterparts in the Union Territory of  Delhi<br \/>\nwas  increased, appellants, while working in the same  cadre<br \/>\nin  the\t Union\tTerritory of Goa, were not  given  that\t pay<br \/>\nscale.\t It  infringes,\t according to  them,  the  principle<br \/>\nenshrined in the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Facts  are  simple.  On 20-12-1961 the Territories  of<br \/>\nGoa,  Daman  and Diu were liberated from the  suzerainty  of<br \/>\nPortugal.   In 1962, Goa became part of the Union  Territory<br \/>\nof  India.   Appellants were District Judges posted  in\t the<br \/>\nUnion  Territory  of  Goa.   On 3-9-1981  the  pay-scale  of<br \/>\njudicial  officers (in the category of Additional District &amp;<br \/>\nSessions  Judges)  in  the Union Territories  was  the\tsame<br \/>\nRs.1200-2000\/-.\t  In  1982  the\t Union\tTerritory  of  Delhi<br \/>\nincreased  the scale of pay of such Judges to Rs.2000-3200\/-<br \/>\nwhile  their counterparts in the Union Territory of Goa were<br \/>\nnot  given  any increase to keep the scale on par  with\t the<br \/>\nformer.\t   When\t the  Fourth   Pay  Commission\twas   formed<br \/>\nrepresentations were made by the judicial officers of Goa to<br \/>\nrectify\t the  anomaly  which, according to them,  came\tinto<br \/>\nexistence  for\tthe  first time in 1982, but no\t relief\t was<br \/>\nprovided  to them.  On the contrary, the recommendations  of<br \/>\nthe  Pay  Commission  were for raising the scale of  pay  of<br \/>\nDelhi  Judges to Rs.4500-5700\/- while that of Goa Judges was<br \/>\nraised only to Rs.3000- 5000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>      On  30-5-1987, Goa became a State separate from  Union<br \/>\nTerritory.   It\t is  conceded that appellants  cannot  claim<br \/>\nparity\twith  the Delhi judicial officers after\t that  date.<br \/>\nHence  the  grievance of the appellants was confined to\t the<br \/>\nperiod between 1-3-1982 and 31-3-1987.\tAppellants therefore<br \/>\nfiled  writ  petitions before the High Court  for  necessary<br \/>\nreliefs to be granted to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Division Bench of the High Court while  declining<br \/>\nto grant the reliefs advanced the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  is  now well-settled by a catena of decisions\t of<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court and this Court that the doctrine of equal<br \/>\nwork,  equal pay is a well-accepted norm in  administration<br \/>\nof services under the control of the Governments.  To enable<br \/>\nthe  employees\tto  claim an advantage, it is  essential  to<br \/>\nestablish  that the posts of judicial officers in Delhi\t and<br \/>\nGoa  are  equal or are comparable before demanding that\t the<br \/>\npay  scales  available\tto  Delhi officers  should  be\tmade<br \/>\navailable  to  Goa  officers.\tThe  only  averment  in\t the<br \/>\npetition is that the posts in Delhi and Goa Judicial Service<br \/>\ncarry  the same duties, responsibilities and nature of\twork<br \/>\nbeing  identical, the Goa officers are entitled to identical<br \/>\npay  scales  as\t those\tavailable to  Delhi  officers.\t The<br \/>\naverment  made\tin  the\t petition is not  supported  by\t any<br \/>\nmaterial  whatsoever  and it would be impossible to draw  on<br \/>\nimagination  to\t hold  that  the nature\t of  the  duties  of<br \/>\nofficers in Delhi and Goa are identical.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned  Judges  repelled\t the contention\t that  since<br \/>\nDelhi and Goa were Union Territories it must be assumed that<br \/>\nthe  nature  of\t the  duties  and  responsibilities  of\t the<br \/>\nDistrict and Sessions Judges were identical and consequently<br \/>\nboth must get same benefit.  They took the view that merely<br \/>\nbecause\t the officers in the two Territories are in judicial<br \/>\nservice\t it cannot be even suggested that the nature of\t the<br \/>\nduties and the responsibilities are identical.\n<\/p>\n<p>      To buttress the aforesaid reasoning the Division Bench<br \/>\ncited\tan  illustration  as   the  following:\t Take\tfor<br \/>\nillustration,  the nurses employed in a large hospital in  a<br \/>\ncity  like  Bombay.   Is  it  possible\tby  any\t stretch  of<br \/>\nimagination  to\t suggest that the nurses working in a  small<br \/>\nhospital  in a remote village are performing the same duties<br \/>\nand carrying the same responsibilities as the nurses working<br \/>\nin a large hospital in a city like Bombay?\n<\/p>\n<p>      Ultimately  the  writ  petitions\t were  dismissed  as<br \/>\nlearned\t Judges were unable to appreciate on what basis they<br \/>\ncould  claim to be entitled to the same pay-scales as  those<br \/>\navailable  to judicial officers in Delhi.  In the concluding<br \/>\npassage\t the  Division Bench said that in our judgment\tthe<br \/>\nclaim made by the petitioners is wholly misconceived and the<br \/>\npetitioners  are not entitled to any relief.  We are  unable<br \/>\nto  grant any relief to the petitioner and the petition must<br \/>\nfail.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri  Ashok  Desai, learned senior  counsel  contended<br \/>\nthat  Division\tBench of the High Court missed\tthe  crucial<br \/>\npoint  that  the  claim is confined to the period  when\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Judges and their counterparts in Delhi were working<br \/>\nunder the same Union Government though the administration in<br \/>\nthe   two  territories\twas   carried  on  through  separate<br \/>\nagencies.  According to the senior counsel, pendency of work<br \/>\nat  two\t places is not a criteria, as the workload  and\t the<br \/>\nnature\tof work at both places were substantially the  same.<br \/>\nThe  illustration of nurses cited in the judgment was sought<br \/>\nto  be demonstrated as another point in support of the claim<br \/>\ninstead of repelling it.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The principle of equal pay for equal work has gained<br \/>\njudicial recognition.  The principle incorporated in Article<br \/>\n14  when understood from the angle provided in Article 39(d)<br \/>\nof  the\t Constitution is held to be the recognition  of\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  doctrine.  It has been held in <a href=\"\/doc\/1230349\/\">Randhir Singh\t vs.<br \/>\nUnion  of India<\/a> [1982 (1) SCC 612] that the principle equal<br \/>\npay  for equal work is not an abstract doctrine but one\t of<br \/>\nsubstance.   Their  Lordships  pointed out:   To  the  vast<br \/>\nmajority  of the people in India the equality clauses of the<br \/>\nConstitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with<br \/>\nthe work they do and the pay they get.\tTo them the equality<br \/>\nclauses\t will have some substance if equal work means  equal<br \/>\npay.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  parameters for invoking the said principles would<br \/>\ninclude, inter alia, nature of the work and common employer.<br \/>\nThere  can  be\tno  two views that the\tnature\tof  work  of<br \/>\nDistrict  and  Sessions\t Judges is the same though  in\tsome<br \/>\nareas  pendency\t of  cases  would  be  higher  than  others.<br \/>\nDifferences  in\t the  backlog are not uncommon even  in\t two<br \/>\ndifferent  stations  of\t the  same territory,  nay,  in\t two<br \/>\ndifferent  courts of the same station.\tSuch lopsidedness is<br \/>\nhardly\tthe ground to conclude that the nature of work\tdone<br \/>\nby  one\t judicial  officer at one place\t is  different\tfrom<br \/>\nother.\t The duty hours would be substantially the same, the<br \/>\npowers\tto  be discharged are in no way\t different,  whether<br \/>\nthey  are District Judges in Goa or in Delhi.  It would be a<br \/>\nfutile\texercise  to  make  an\t endeavour  for\t drawing   a<br \/>\ndistinction  between  the work pattern at the two  different<br \/>\nplaces,\t for,  such differences are discernible\t everywhere.<br \/>\nBut  that  would not make the nature of work different.\t  It<br \/>\nwas  not  necessary  to\t cast the burden  of  proof  on\t the<br \/>\nappellants  to establish the pendency of litigation or\tthe<br \/>\nnorms  fixed  for  disposal of cases by the Delhi  court  to<br \/>\nenable\tcomparison  between  the nature of  duties  and\t the<br \/>\nresponsibilities  carried  by  the  officers  of  the  Delhi<br \/>\nTerritory and the Goa Territory.\n<\/p>\n<p>      One  admitted fact which looms large is that till hike<br \/>\nin  the pay-scale was brought about in 1982 for Delhi Judges<br \/>\nthe  parity maintained as between Union Territory of Goa and<br \/>\nDelhi  applied\tto  the\t same cadre  of\t judicial  officers.<br \/>\nNobody\tdoubted\t till then that the nature and dimension  of<br \/>\nwork  discharged  by  the  officers of\tthe  same  cadre  of<br \/>\njudicial   officers  at\t two   different  territories\twere<br \/>\ndifferent  from\t any  perceptible standard.  It is  for\t the<br \/>\ncontesting  respondents to show that there was change in the<br \/>\nnature of work which necessitated the Government to keep two<br \/>\ndifferent  levels of pay to the same officers working at two<br \/>\ndifferent places.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Pay-scale of District and Sessions Judges in the Union<br \/>\nTerritory  of  Goa was made on a par with that of  Delhi  by<br \/>\nmeans of the rules and regulations formulated by the Central<br \/>\nGovernment  in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the<br \/>\nprovisions  of The Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed\t Employees)<br \/>\nAct,  1965. The change was effected in 1982 on the  premise<br \/>\nthat the judicial officers in Delhi were upgraded as class I<br \/>\nofficers  and since Union Territory of Delhi was declared  a<br \/>\nMetropolitan  city,  the  pay-scales were equated  with\t the<br \/>\npay-scales  of\tjudicial  officers   in\t other\tMetropolitan<br \/>\ncities.\t  We  are not against revision of the pay-scales  of<br \/>\nthe judicial officers in the Union Territory of Delhi on the<br \/>\nbasis  of  any\tjustifiable grounds.  But in  doing  so\t the<br \/>\npay-scales  of\ttheir  counterparts working in\tother  Union<br \/>\nTerritories  cannot  suffer.   Shri A.S.   Nambiar,  learned<br \/>\nSenior\tAdvocate  made a bid to raise a new contention\tthat<br \/>\nthe  Central  Government  was  helpless in  keeping  up\t the<br \/>\npay-scales of the officers in Goa on a par with the judicial<br \/>\nofficers  of  Delhi as Goa was then administered  through  a<br \/>\nseparate  elected legislature, and under Article 240 of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution powers of the President to make regulations had<br \/>\nbeen  bridled.\tWe are not disposed to countenance the\tsaid<br \/>\ncontention  advanced  for the first time  during  arguments,<br \/>\nfor, that was not the premise on which the parity was denied<br \/>\nto the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For  the\taforesaid reasons we allow this\t appeal\t and<br \/>\ndirect the respondent Union of India to disburse the arrears<br \/>\nof pay to the appellants calculating their scale of pay on a<br \/>\npar  with their counterparts in the Union Territory of Delhi<br \/>\nduring\tthe  period  between 1.3.1982 and  31.3.1987.\tSuch<br \/>\nrecalculation  shall  be  made\tand  the  arrears  shall  be<br \/>\nquantified to be disbursed within six months from today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.Saghir Hamad PETITIONER: SHRI ALVARO NORONHA FERRIERA &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/04\/1999 BENCH: K.T. Thomas, S.Saghir Hamad JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. Some Judges [&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-213652","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>Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999 - 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\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-25T01:27:35+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-25T01:27:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1737,\"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\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999\",\"name\":\"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-25T01:27:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999 - 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\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-25T01:27:35+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999","datePublished":"1999-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-25T01:27:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999"},"wordCount":1737,"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\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999","name":"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-25T01:27:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-alvaro-noronha-ferriera-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-23-april-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Alvaro Noronha Ferriera &amp; Anr vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 23 April, 1999"}]},{"@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\/213652","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=213652"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213652\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}