{"id":216625,"date":"2009-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-19T22:22:47","modified_gmt":"2017-05-19T16:52:47","slug":"p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 32064 of 2008(S)\n\n\n1.  P.N.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,AGED 62 YEARS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE\n\n3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :24\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n     K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n                ---------------------------------------\n                W.P.(C) No. 32064 OF 2008\n                ---------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The applicant in O.A.No.363\/2007, before the Central<\/p>\n
Administrative  Tribunal,     Ernakulam        Bench,   is the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner. The said Original Application was filed by him,<\/p>\n
challenging Annexure A1 and A10, produced along with the<\/p>\n
memorandum of Original Application, a copy of which is<\/p>\n
produced as Ext.P2.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The brief facts of the case are the following:<\/p>\n
      The writ petitioner joined the Air Force as a Combatant<\/p>\n
Clerk on 31.1.1967. On completion of 15 years service, he was<\/p>\n
discharged from the Air Force on 31.1.1982. The petitioner got<\/p>\n
re-employment as Postal Assistant on 6.8.1984 in the scale of<\/p>\n
pay of Rs.260-480. Regarding the fixation of pay, a dispute<\/p>\n
arose between the petitioner and the respondents. As per the<\/p>\n
office memorandum issued by the Central Government on<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008              2<\/span><\/p>\n
25.11.1958, the petitioner was entitled to get 15 increments for<\/p>\n
the 15 years’ service rendered by him in the post of Combatant<\/p>\n
Clerk. So, he claimed, he was entitled to get the pay fixed at the<\/p>\n
stage of Rs.396\/-.     The Central Government issued a further<\/p>\n
order on 8.2.1983, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6,<\/p>\n
providing that the entire pension drawn by a non-commissioned<\/p>\n
officer shall be ignored while fixing the pay of an ex-service man<\/p>\n
on re-employment in civil service. Based on those two orders, the<\/p>\n
petitioner claimed fixation of pay at the stage of Rs.396. But, the<\/p>\n
respondents took the view that his pay can be fixed only at the<\/p>\n
minimum of the scale of pay and he cannot get the benefit of<\/p>\n
past service in the Air Force . The said dispute led to the filing of<\/p>\n
O.A.No.661\/1993, which was allowed by Annexure-A2 order by<\/p>\n
the C.A.T., Ernakulam Bench. In that order, the C.A.T relied on a<\/p>\n
Full Bench decision of the C.A.T in O.A.No.3\/89. The operative<\/p>\n
portion of Annexure A2 order of the C.A.T. reads as follows:<\/p>\n
            “In this view of the matter, I follow the Full
\n            Bench    judgment    of   the   Tribunal    in
\n            O.A.NO.3\/89 and allow the application. The
\n            respondents shall fix the pay of the applicant
\n            in the re-employed post in the scale of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008            3<\/span><\/p>\n
            Rs.260-480 by allowing one increment for
\n            each completed year of service of the
\n            applicant in the Armed Forces, ignoring the
\n            pension drawn by him with all attendant
\n            benefits from the date of his re-employment.
\n            This shall be done within a period of four
\n            months from the date of receipt of a copy of
\n            the judgment. There shall be no order as to
\n            costs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.     The C.A.T. has specifically ordered that the petitioner<\/p>\n
is entitled to get one increment for each completed year of<\/p>\n
service of the applicant in the Armed Forces ignoring the<\/p>\n
pension drawn by him with all attendant benefits. Pursuant to<\/p>\n
the said order of the C.A.T., the petitioner’s initial pay was fixed<\/p>\n
as per Annexure-A3 at the stage of Rs.396\/- in the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Rs.260-480\/-.     In the meantime, the respondents moved the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court and obtained stay of Annexure-A2.<\/p>\n
Therefore, fixation in Annexure-A3 was never implemented.<\/p>\n
Later, the Apex Court, as per Annexure-A4 disposed of the<\/p>\n
appeal stating that the same is disposed of in terms of the<\/p>\n
decision in Civil Appeal Nos.4077-78\/1992 Director General of<\/p>\n
Posts and other v. B.Ravindran and another. A copy of that<\/p>\n
judgment referred to in the order of the Apex Court is Ext.P8.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008             4<\/span><\/p>\n
Apparently, in obedience to Annexure-A4 order of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court, the respondents fixed the pay of the applicant at the stage<\/p>\n
of Rs.324\/-. The apparent reason for the reduction of the amount<\/p>\n
was that out of the total 15 years’ service rendered by him, the<\/p>\n
respondents maintained that only 8 years’ service could be<\/p>\n
reckoned. The reason was that only 8 years’ service was in the<\/p>\n
post having the same scale of pay. But, in fact, though the post<\/p>\n
was the same, the pay happened to be different because for the<\/p>\n
first seven years out of the fifteen years, he was drawing salary<\/p>\n
in the pre-revised scale. Challenging that order, a copy of which<\/p>\n
is produced as Annexure-A5 along with Ext.P2, the petitioner<\/p>\n
filed O.A.No.153\/1998. The said Original Application was heard<\/p>\n
and allowed by Annexure A7. The relevant portion of the said<\/p>\n
order reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “In the result, we find that the applicant is
\n            entitled to have his pay fixed in accordance
\n            with the provisions contained in Rule 16(2) of
\n            the CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed
\n            Pensioners) Orders, 1986.   Accordingly, the
\n            impugned orders are set aside and the
\n            respondents are directed to refix the pay of
\n            the applicant in terms of the provisions of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008               5<\/span><\/p>\n
            Rule 16(2) of the CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-
\n            employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 giving him
\n            benefit of increment for the entire service as
\n            Combant Clerk in 15 years. The order fixing
\n            the pay of the applicant accordingly shall be
\n            issued and the monetary benefit flowing
\n            therefrom made available to the applicant
\n            within two months from the date of receipt of
\n            a copy of this order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.     The respondents challenged that order before this<\/p>\n
Court by filing O.P.No.16443\/2001. The said Original Petition<\/p>\n
was dismissed by Annexure-A8 judgment. The relevant portion<\/p>\n
of the said judgment reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “7.    This contention is in effect an attempt
\n            to undo what has been held in Annexure-A1 by
\n            the Tribunal below, which has been confirmed
\n            by the Supreme Court as revealed by
\n            Annexure-A3.    As already mentioned above,
\n            the direction in Annexure-A1 is to grant one
\n            increment for each completed year of service
\n            of the second respondent in the Armed Force.
\n            When the petitioners themselves admit that
\n            the second respondent did have 15 completed
\n            years of service before he was discharged
\n            from the Army, going by Annexure-A1, he is
\n            entitled to 15 increments.     In the light of
\n            Ext.A1 pronouncement by the Tribunal below<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008              6<\/span><\/p>\n
            which has been confirmed by the Supreme
\n            Court, the petitioners cannot contend that he
\n            would    be  granted    only  8   increments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Therefore, the Tribunal was well justified in
\n            setting aside Exts.A5 and A7.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In purported implementation of Annexure-A7 as affirmed in<\/p>\n
Annexure-A8,      the   petitioner’s   pay  was    again  fixed by<\/p>\n
Annexure-A10. His pay was fixed at Rs.260+1, i.e., Rs.261\/-. He<\/p>\n
was granted 15 increments, but, the entire pension minus Rs.15<\/p>\n
was deducted from the basic pay of Rs.396\/- arrived at after<\/p>\n
granting 15 increments. Therefore, his pay was further reduced<\/p>\n
to Rs.261. By Annexure-A1 he was called upon to remit the<\/p>\n
excess salary paid to him. The petitioner was earlier granted the<\/p>\n
fixation at Rs.324\/- and therefore, going by the present fixation<\/p>\n
under Annexure-A10, he has drawn excess salary every month.<\/p>\n
The total excess salary comes to Rs.94,065\/-. In the present<\/p>\n
Original Application, as mentioned earlier, Annexure A1 and<\/p>\n
A10 were challenged.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008                7<\/span><\/p>\n
      5.    The petitioner contended that being dissatisfied with<\/p>\n
the pay fixed at Rs.324\/-, he started the legal fight and the same<\/p>\n
finally ended in his pay being fixed at Rs.260+1, though he<\/p>\n
succeeded in all the cases. The petitioner pointed out that the<\/p>\n
respondents never had a case that his entire pension cannot be<\/p>\n
ignored. Their only dispute was relating to the counting of 15<\/p>\n
years service for the purpose of grant of increment. According<\/p>\n
to them, his service for 7 years was in a lower scale of pay, the<\/p>\n
same could not be counted. The said dispute was resolved in his<\/p>\n
favour.   But, relying on a mistake committed by the Tribunal while<\/p>\n
rendering Annexure-A6, the present stand was taken by the respondents.<\/p>\n
Before the Tribunal, in the present Original Application the respondents<\/p>\n
stuck to their stand and supported the impugned orders. The Tribunal,<\/p>\n
after hearing both sides, upheld the contentions of the respondents made<\/p>\n
relying on Annexure-A7 and dismissed the Original Application by Ext.P1<\/p>\n
order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, this Writ Petition was filed.<\/p>\n
      6.    We heard the learned senior counsel Sri.K.R.B. Kaimal<\/p>\n
for the petitioner and Sri. Thomas Thomas on behalf of<\/p>\n
Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, Assistant Solicitor General of India.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008               8<\/span><\/p>\n
The    learned     senior   counsel    submitted     that  going by<\/p>\n
Annexure-A7, it can be seen that the Tribunal committed a<\/p>\n
mistake in ordering to fix the pay of the petitioner under Rule 16<\/p>\n
(2) of the    CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners)<\/p>\n
Orders, 1986.      In fact the said rule was introduced only on<\/p>\n
31.7.1986 with effect from 1.7.1986.          The said rule has no<\/p>\n
application to the fixation of pay of the writ petitioner on re-<\/p>\n
employment on 6.8.1984.          There was no dispute before any<\/p>\n
forum regarding ignoring the full pension of the petitioner for<\/p>\n
fixation of pay, as he is a non-commissioned officer. This right<\/p>\n
accrued to him under Ext.P6 order. The relevant portion of the<\/p>\n
said order reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “The undersigned is directed to refer to this
\n            Ministry’s OM No.2(7)\/78\/6664\/D (Civ-1)
\n            dated 30.8.1978 and to say that the question
\n            of raising the limit of present ceiling\/pension
\n            which has to\/ of being ignored in fixing of pay
\n            on reemployment of ex servicemen, who retire
\n            before attaining the age of 55, has been
\n            under the consideration of the government
\n            for some time. The President is pleased to
\n            decide that in case of those Ex-servicemen
\n            retiring before attaining the age of 55, the
\n            pension as indicated below may be ignored in
\n            fixing their pay on re-employment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008              9<\/span><\/p>\n
            (i)    In the case of Service Officers, the\n            first Rs.250\/- of pension.\n\n            (ii)   In  the  case   of   personnel below\n            commissioned    officer   rank,  the  entire\n            pension.\"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      7.    So, in the case of the petitioner, who was a<\/p>\n
non-commissioned officer, the learned senior counsel submitted<\/p>\n
that at no point of time there was any dispute regarding ignoring<\/p>\n
the entire pension. So, the judgment, Annexure-A7, should be<\/p>\n
read as a whole and in fact Rule 16(2) was relied on only to<\/p>\n
highlight or support the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled<\/p>\n
to get one increment for the entire 15 years’ service. The said<\/p>\n
Rule was comparable to the earlier provisions under the 1958<\/p>\n
Government Order. But, the Tribunal in Ext.P1 mechanically<\/p>\n
followed the direction in Annexure-A7 and held that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to get fixation only under Rule 16(2) and by<\/p>\n
virtue of explanation (2) to Rule 16(2), Rs.15, out of the total<\/p>\n
pension alone is ignorable. So, the impugned orders were held<\/p>\n
to be valid.     The same is a perverse       approach warranting<\/p>\n
interference by this Court, it is submitted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
      8.    The learned counsel for the respondents on the other<\/p>\n
hand fully supported the view taken by the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
Annexure-A7 being an inter-parte judgment, the petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot demur against that             and the respondents have only<\/p>\n
implemented it, it is submitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.    Evidently, there is a mistake in Annexure-A7.            If,<\/p>\n
mechanically, Annexure-A7 is applied, explanation 2 of Rule 16<\/p>\n
(2) will come into ply and only Rs.15 of the pension drawn by the<\/p>\n
petitioner alone could be ignored. But, we notice that the new<\/p>\n
rules were introduced only from 1.7.1986 and we are concerned<\/p>\n
with the fixation of pay in 1984.           At that time Ext.P6 was<\/p>\n
governing the field and all along the stand of the respondents<\/p>\n
was that Ext.P6 will apply. In other words at no point of time,<\/p>\n
they claimed that his pension has to be deducted from the basic<\/p>\n
pay of the petitioner. So, if Annexure-A7 is read in the light of<\/p>\n
the pleadings and in the background facts of the case, we have<\/p>\n
no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal mentioned Rule 16(2) only to<\/p>\n
support the petitioner’s right to get increment for each year’s service.<\/p>\n
The pay of an incumbent, who joined in 1984, could not be fixed<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008           11<\/span><\/p>\n
in the light of a Rule which came into force on 1.7.1986. Further,<\/p>\n
we notice that in the earlier proceedings before the Tribunal,<\/p>\n
this Court and the Apex Court, the claim of the writ petitioner for<\/p>\n
ignoring pension on the strength of Ext.P6 was never disputed<\/p>\n
by the respondents or rather it was conceded and all authorities<\/p>\n
proceeded on the footing that he is entitled to have his entire<\/p>\n
pension ignored by virtue of Ext.P6.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     10. In the light of the above position, we have to read<\/p>\n
Annexure-A7. If that be so, the same will not stand in the way of<\/p>\n
the petitioner getting 15 increments for fixation of his initial<\/p>\n
basic pay and also the right to ignore the entire pension drawn<\/p>\n
by him. In view of the above position, the order of the Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 is plainly untenable. The Tribunal has missed the wood<\/p>\n
for the trees and rendered a decision, which has to be described<\/p>\n
as perverse. In the result, Ext.P1 is quashed. We also quash<\/p>\n
Annexures-A1 and A10 produced along with Ext.P2.                It is<\/p>\n
declared that the petitioner is entitled to get his initial basic pay<\/p>\n
fixed at Rs.396\/- with effect from 6.8.1984 (as fixed in<\/p>\n
Annexure A3).        The respondents shall implement the above<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.32064\/2008            12<\/span><\/p>\n
declaration and grant the consequential benefits to the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner     within three     months     from  the date of<\/p>\n
production\/receipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                            (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
\nps<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 32064 of 2008(S) 1. P.N.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,AGED 62 YEARS … Petitioner Vs 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES For Petitioner […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009 - 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-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-19T16:52:47+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\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-19T16:52:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2207,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009\",\"name\":\"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-19T16:52:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009 - 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-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-19T16:52:47+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\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-19T16:52:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009"},"wordCount":2207,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009","name":"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-19T16:52:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raveendran-pillai-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.N.Raveendran Pillai vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/216625","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=216625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}