{"id":219562,"date":"2002-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002"},"modified":"2015-06-28T12:17:17","modified_gmt":"2015-06-28T06:47:17","slug":"v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 18\/07\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ\n\nW.P.No.25498 of 2002\nand\nW.P.M.P.No.35083 of 2002\n\n\nV. Subramaniam                                         ....  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs.\n\n1.  The Chief Executive Officer,\n    Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village\n    Industries Board, Kuralagam,\n    Chennai \u2013 108.\n\n2.  The Secretary to Government,\n    Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles,\n    and Khadi Department,\n    Secretariat, Chennai \u2013 9.                   ....  Respondents\n\n        Writ petition filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying for the issue of writ of mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.  M.  Kannadasan\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.  S.  Venkatesh, AGP\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                Writ  petition  praying  to issue a writ of mandamus directing<br \/>\nthe  respondents  to  disburse  pension  arrears,  gratuity  arrears,  medical<br \/>\nallowance and other allowances with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from<br \/>\nthe  date of petitioner&#8217;s superannuation on 31.12.1991 and continue to pay his<br \/>\nmonthly pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Today, when the above  writ  petition  was  taken  up  for<br \/>\nadmission,  on perusal of the pleadings, having regard to the materials placed<br \/>\non record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, what  could<br \/>\nbe  gathered  is  that  the petitioner joined the respondent department in the<br \/>\nyear 1958 as Sales Assistant and subsequently  got  promoted  as  Manager  and<br \/>\nwhile  he  was  functioning  as Assistant Manager, Khadi Craft, Cuddalore, the<br \/>\nDistrict Khadi and  Village  Industries  Officer,  Cuddalore  by  order  dated<br \/>\n23.05.1974  had placed him under suspension, pending investigation and framing<br \/>\nof the charges relating to irregularities; that in the  enquiry,  he  was  not<br \/>\ngiven full opportunity to cross examine the witness; that in the conclusion of<br \/>\nthe  charges  framed  against the petitioner except one charge was held proved<br \/>\nand it was proposed to dismiss him from service and in  fact  by  order  dated<br \/>\n11.11.1976,  the first respondent dismissed him from service of the respondent<br \/>\ndepartment.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The further case of the petitioner is that he preferred an<br \/>\nappeal before the second respondent herein and that was also  dismissed;  that<br \/>\nhe filed W.P.No.1533 of 1979, which also came to be dismissed and he preferred<br \/>\nan  appeal  in W.A.No.509 of 1979 in which Division Bench of this Court as per<br \/>\nits Judgment dated  05.11.1985,  allowed  the  appeal  quashed  the  order  of<br \/>\ndismissal  and  directed  the  respondents  to  pay all the attendant benefits<br \/>\narising there from further giving liberty to  the  respondent  to  conduct  an<br \/>\nenquiry  afresh;  that of much pursuance that the respondent reinstated him in<br \/>\nservice; that while disposing of the  Special  Leave  Petition  filed  by  the<\/p>\n<p>respondent,  the  honourable Supreme Court directed the respondents to deposit<br \/>\nthe full  amount  of  backwages  payable  to  him,  consequent  to  which  the<br \/>\npetitioner was permitted to withdraw one third of it by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   The  petitioner would further submit that a fresh enquiry<br \/>\nwas commenced and final orders were passed on 22.09.1986 dismissing  him  from<br \/>\nservice; that an appeal preferred by him before the second respondent was also<br \/>\ndismissed by an order dated 06.08.1990 and therefore, left with no option, the<br \/>\npetitioner filed  another  writ  petition  in W.P.  No.17803 of 1991; that the<br \/>\nsaid writ petition was  disposed  of  on  09.12  .1999  directing  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  to  pass  appropriate  orders  on  the recommendation of the first<br \/>\nrespondent relating to the disbursement of the monetary  benefits  within  the<br \/>\nprescribed  time  limit  and as per the said order, a sum of Rs.1,48,840\/- was<br \/>\npaid  on  11.02.2000  towards  backwages  and  terminal  benefits;   that   an<br \/>\napplication  filed  by  him seeking clarification regarding the continuance of<br \/>\ndisbursement of his monthly pension, gratuity,  medical  allowance  etc.    in<br \/>\nW.M.P.No.14955  of  2000  was  dismissed  by this Court on 16.10.2000; that an<br \/>\nappeal filed in W.A.No.1078 of 2001 against the said order was also dismissed.<br \/>\nAgain and again repeating the same old story of the order of dismissal  having<br \/>\nbeen set aside by this Court in W.A.No.509 of 1979 and accusing that the first<br \/>\nrespondent  refusing  to  disburse  the  backwages and stating that he filed a<br \/>\nclarification petition in which the Division Bench order as on  30.06.1994  as<br \/>\n&#8220;when  the order of dismissal was set aside and reinstatement was directed, he<br \/>\nmust be deemed to have been on duty.  Accordingly, he must be  treated  as  in<br \/>\nservice from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement&#8221;.  Based on<br \/>\nthese,  the petitioner stating that he is entitled to all terminal benefits as<br \/>\nclaimed in the writ petition would come forward to seek the  relief  extracted<br \/>\nsupra.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   It  is  the  case of the petitioner that he got dismissed<br \/>\nfrom service on enquiry as  per  the  order  of  the  first  respondent  dated<br \/>\n11.11.1976;  that  an  appeal  preferred also came to be dismissed, he filed a<br \/>\nwrit petition in W.P.No.1533 of 1979, which too came to be  dismissed  and  an<br \/>\nappeal  preferred  to this order in W.A .No.509 of 1979, the Division Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court is said to have been passed a Judgment  dated  05.11.1985  allowing<br \/>\nthe  appeal  quashing  the  order  of dismissal with certain directions giving<br \/>\nopportunity to the respondents  to  conduct  a  fresh  enquiry  and  to  award<br \/>\npunishment, if the charges are proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Since the petitioner has not placed on record the judgment<br \/>\nof  the  Division Bench of this Court dated 05.11.1985, this Court is not in a<br \/>\nposition to know as to on what grounds and in what circumstances, the Division<br \/>\nBench arrived at such conclusions, so as to proceed further,  since  it  is  a<br \/>\ncrucial  judgment  said to have been passed in favour of the petitioner in the<br \/>\nentire process of the disciplinary enquiry, but it is an admitted case of  the<br \/>\npetitioner,  that  the  respondents  were given opportunity to conduct a fresh<br \/>\nenquiry and to award punishment, if the charges are  proved.    Consequent  to<br \/>\nwhich,  a  fresh  enquiry  was  held  and  passed a final order dismissing the<br \/>\npetitioner again from service on 22.09.1986; that an appeal preferred  by  the<br \/>\npetitioner  against this dismissal, having came to be dismissed on 06.08.1990,<br \/>\nthe petitioner is said to have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17803 of  1991,<br \/>\nwhich too was dismissed and it is at this stage that a settlement is stated to<br \/>\nhave  been  arrived  at  and the writ petition would not supply anything about<br \/>\nwhat was decided in the settlement regarding the dismissal order passed by the<br \/>\nrespondents dated 22.09.1986 and whether the petitioner was reinstated or what<br \/>\nhappened to those orders legally passed, but  the  petitioner  would  only  be<br \/>\ndealing  with  the  disbursement of the monetary benefits and the payment of a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.1,48,840\/-  on  11.02.2000  towards  backwages  and  other  terminal<br \/>\nbenefits  and ultimately the petitioner stating that he was under the bonafide<br \/>\nbelief that the respondents would continue to disburse  his  monthly  pension,<br \/>\ngratuity, medical allowances etc., since they have not been referred to at the<br \/>\ntime  of  disposing of the said clarification petition filed in W.M.P.No.14955<br \/>\nof 2000 having came to be dismissed by an order dated 16.10.2000 and an appeal<br \/>\npreferred against that order in W.A.N0.1078 of 2001 had came to  be  dismissed<br \/>\non  ground  that &#8220;the point which is not agitated cannot be raised as a ground<br \/>\nto review the earlier order&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  In these circumstances, the petitioner would again  raking<br \/>\nup  the  same old rejected plea not only in the writ petition, but also in the<br \/>\nwrit appeal mentioned above, has come forward to claim in this  writ  petition<br \/>\nalso  without placing the full details regarding his claim and without stating<br \/>\nanything regarding the ultimate dismissal order passed especially in  view  of<br \/>\nthe fact that a writ petition and the writ appeal filed against the said order<br \/>\nhave both been respectively dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   While  such  being  so, when the dismissal order had been<br \/>\nconfirmed on appeal also, what  made  the  respondent  authorities  ultimately<br \/>\nenter  into  compromise  is neither revealed not able to be understood nor any<br \/>\nmaterial has been placed on record regarding the same.   But  so  far  as  the<br \/>\nclarification  rendered  by  the  Division Bench in its order dated 30.06.1994<br \/>\nmade in C.M.P.No.3951 of 1994 is concerned, no where it  could  be  seen  that<br \/>\nsubsequent  to  the  Division  Bench Judgment made in W.A.No.509 of 1979 dated<br \/>\n05.11.1985 that an opportunity has been given to the  respondents  therein  to<br \/>\ninitiate fresh  enquiry.  But a fresh enquiry had been held and ultimately the<br \/>\npetitioner got dismissed from service from 22.09.1986 and the appeal preferred<br \/>\nby him before the appellate authority had  also  been  dismissed  as  per  the<br \/>\nappellate authority&#8217;s order dated 06.08.1990 which had not at all been brought<br \/>\nto the notice of the Division Bench while seeking clarification.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   However,  yet another single Judge and the Division Bench<br \/>\nhave dismissed the same plea of the petitioner, which he has repeated in  this<br \/>\nwrit  petition  as  it  comes  to be seen from the orders passed by the single<br \/>\nJudge in W.P.No.15409 of 1998.  Moreover, the clarification sought for in  the<br \/>\norder  dated  09.12.1999  made by the single Judge in W.P.No.17803 of 1991 for<br \/>\none and the same purpose had also been dismissed by the Division Bench in  its<br \/>\nJudgment  dated  03.07.2001  made  in  W.A.No.1078  of 2001 and therefore, the<br \/>\npetitioner having lost all his opportunities since has come  forward  to  file<br \/>\nthis  writ petition also without any right or without any locus standi to file<br \/>\nsuch a writ petition, unless liberty has been given  by  the  Division  Bench,<br \/>\nwhich  ultimately  dealt  with  the  subject  and  dismissed  his  plea  as on<br \/>\n03.07.2001 (on reasons that the point which is not agitated cannot  be  raised<br \/>\nas  a  ground  to  review  the  earlier  order), filing such a writ petitions,<br \/>\nagitating a non existent right is nothing short of an  attempt  to  waste  the<br \/>\nprecious  time  of  the Court without any basic right or locus standi or valid<br \/>\nreasons to offer as it  has  been  admitted  in  this  writ  petition  by  the<br \/>\npetitioner.    In   short  the  petitioner  has  claimed  the  relief  without<br \/>\nestablishing his locus standi to agitate on writ petition after writ  petition<br \/>\nor  his  right to claim such relief simply forgotting the fact that this Court<br \/>\ncould only once exercise its  discretionary  jurisdiction  on  a  subject  and<br \/>\ncannot deal with in piece meal on claims without a basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In result,<\/p>\n<p>                i)  The  above  writ  petition does not merit admission and is<br \/>\ndismissed as such.\n<\/p>\n<p>                ii) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall  be<br \/>\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                iii) Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.35083 of 2002 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.07.2002<br \/>\nIndex:Yes<br \/>\nsl<br \/>\nV.  KANAGARAJ,J<br \/>\nsl<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Chief Executive Officer,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Khadi and Village<br \/>\nIndustries Board, Kuralagam,<br \/>\nChennai \u2013 108.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nHandlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles,<br \/>\nand Khadi Department,<br \/>\nSecretariat, Chennai \u2013 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>W.P.No.25498 of 2002<br \/>\n&amp;<br \/>\nW.P.M.P.No.35083 of 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18\/07\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ W.P.No.25498 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.35083 of 2002 V. Subramaniam &#8230;. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002 - 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\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-28T06:47:17+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\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T06:47:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1675,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002\",\"name\":\"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T06:47:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002 - 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\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-28T06:47:17+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\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T06:47:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002"},"wordCount":1675,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002","name":"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T06:47:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-chief-executive-officer-on-18-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V. Subramaniam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 July, 2002"}]},{"@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\/219562","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=219562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}