{"id":221101,"date":"1989-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989"},"modified":"2018-05-30T21:28:17","modified_gmt":"2018-05-30T15:58:17","slug":"gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989","title":{"rendered":"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1212, \t\t 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 727<\/div>\n
Author: P Sawant<\/div>\n
Bench: Sawant, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGOPIKA RANJAN CHOUDHARY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/10\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nMISRA RANGNATH\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR 1212\t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 727\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 616 JT 1989 (4)\t173\n 1989 SCALE  (2)898\n\n\nACT:\n    Assam Rifles Act, 1920: Assam Rifles  Force--Ministerial\nStaff-Higher  pay  scale for staff at  headquarters  against\ntheir counterparts in Units\/Battalions--Whether\t discrimina-\ntory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Consequent\tto  the re-structuring of the  Assam  Rifles\nForce  in 1962 a separate Unit known as Central\t Record\t and\nPay  Accounts  Office (C.R. and P.A.O.) was created  at\t the\nHeadquarters of the force. Pursuant to the recommendation of\nthe Third Central Pay Commission the staff at the  Headquar-\nters were given higher pay scales than those attached to the\nBattalions\/Units.\n    The\t Petitioners sought parity in emoluments with  their\ncounterparts  working at the Headquarters by filing a  peti-\ntion  before the Central Administrative Tribunal  contending\nthat; (i) the C.R. and P.A.O. Unit situated at the Headquar-\nters  was not a part of the Headquarters  establishment\t but\nwas a separate Unit; and (ii) there is no difference  either\nin  the\t nature of work and duties of the two  or  in  their\nqualifications\tand  that the services of the staff  at\t the\nUnits\/Battalions are transferrable to the Headquarters.\t The\nTribunal  rejected the claim of the petitioner holding\tthat\nthe  C.R. and P.A.O. is a different unit and not a  part  of\nthe  establishment  of the Headquarters and  its  staff\t are\nenjoying the scale of pay allowed to the staff of the  Head-\nquarters since its inception. Hence this appeal.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  1. There is a contradiction between\tthe  finding\nrecorded  by  the Tribunal that the C.R. and P.A.O.  at\t the\nHeadquarters  is quite a \"distinct\" establishment  from\t the\nrange Headquarters\/Battalions, and the justification made by\nit of the higher emoluments of the staff at the Headquarters\non the ground that they are enjoying the same as allowed  to\nthe  other  staff of the Headquarters since  its  inception.\n[731C-D]\n1.1. If the C.R. and P.A.O. at the Headquarters is a differ-\nent\n728\nunit  and  not a part of the Headquarters,  then  the  staff\nattached  to the office at the Headquarters is not  entitled\nto  emoluments higher than those drawn by the staff  of\t the\nUnits\/Battalions. [731D]\n    2.\t The payment of higher emoluments to the said  staff\nmerely on the ground that the establishment is at the  place\nwhere  the  Headquarters is situated, is  discriminatory  as\nagainst\t the staff at the Units\/ Battalions since it  is  no\nway different from the other Units. [731E]\n    [Matter remanded to the Tribunal for recording a finding\non (i) whether the qualifications for appointment at the two\nestablishments viz. C.R. and P.A.O. at the Headquarters\t and\nthe  Units  are different, (ii) whether the  nature  of\t the\nduties and responsibilities of the Ministerial staff at\t the\nHeadquarters is of a higher order than that of those at\t the\nUnits\/Battalions,  and (iii) whether transfer of  the  staff\nfrom  the  Units\/ Battalions to the  Headquarters  was\tdone\narbitrarily and without applying any test.  [732B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 3288  of
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 11.8.  1986  of\t the
\nCentral\t Administrative\t Tribunal  at Gauhati  in  G.C.\t No.
\n102\/86 (C.R. No. 905 of 1983).\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, K. Madhav Reddy, Mrs. Kitty  Kuma-
\nramangalam,  Kailash  Vasdev  and Ms.  Vijayalaxmi  for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
    B.\tDutta,\tAdditional Solicitor  General  (N.P.),\tV.C.
\nMahajan,  P.P. Singh and Ms. Sushma Suri, for  the  Respond-
\nents,
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SAWANT,  J.\t This appeal is directed against  the  order
\ndated August 11, 1986, passed by the Central  Administrative
\nTribunal,  Gauhati Bench rejecting the claim for  parity  in
\nemoluments between the\tUpper Division Assistants and  Lower
\nDivision  Assistants  (hereinafter referred to as  UDAs\t and
\nLDAs) in the branch establishments on the one hand and their
\ncounterparts working at the Headquarters on the other.\n<\/p>\n
    2.\tThe  admitted  facts are that the  Assam  Rifles,  a
\npara-military  force  was created by the  then\tAssam  Govt.
\nunder the Assam Rifles
\n729<\/span>
\nAct,  1920,  for its protection. It was taken  over  by\t the
\nGovernment of India, Ministry of External Affairs under\t its
\ndirect control in October 1947. It appears further that\t the
\nGovernment  of India appointed, an Inspector General as\t the
\nHead  for conducting mainly the administrative work  of\t the
\nForce.\tThe Force which was controlled by the North  Eastern
\nFrontier  Agency  (NEFA) had 25\t Battalions\/Units  and\teach
\nBattalion  consisting  of about 1400  personnel\t which\talso
\nincluded  some\tcivilians. In 1962, on account of  the\tthen
\nexigencies, the Force underwent re-structuring of its organ-
\nisation\t as a result of which a separate Unit known as\tCen-
\ntral  Record and Pay Accounts Office (C.R. and\tP.A.O.)\t was
\ncreated at the Headquarters. Each Battalion\/Unit had to send
\nits  detailed  note on the pay and service  record  to\tthis
\noffice.\n<\/p>\n
    3.\tThe Third Central Pay Commission (1973)\t recommended
\nunified\t pay scales to the combatant staff of the  Force  on
\nparity with the Army staff. However, as regards the ministe-
\nrial staff of the Force (such as the UDAs and LDAs with whom
\nwe are concerned in the present case), the Commission recom-
\nmended\ttwo different scales of pay, one for those  attached
\nto the Head Quarters and the other to the  Battalions\/Units,
\nand the same came into force by an order of the Ministry  of
\nHome  Affairs  issued in March 1975. The pay scales  of\t the
\nstaff  at  the Headquarters were higher than  those  of\t the
\nstaff attached to the Battalions\/Units.\n<\/p>\n
    4.\tThe appellant in his capacity as the General  Secre-
\ntary  of the Union of Assam Rifles, Non-Gazetted  Employees,
\nNorth  East Region made representation against this  on\t the
\nallegation  of\tdiscrimination.\t The only  response  of\t the
\nHeadquarters  to  this\trepresentation was a  reply  that  a
\nunified\t cadre for all ministerial employees had  been\tpro-
\nposed  to  the Ministry of Home Affairs for better  pay\t and
\npromotions. The appellant, therefore, filed a writ  petition
\nbefore\tthe Assam High Court which was later transferred  to
\nthe Central Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    5.\tThe  case of the appellant before the  Tribunal\t was
\nthat there was no difference in the nature of the work,\t the
\nduties and responsibilities of the UDAs and LDAs working  in
\nthe  Battalions\/Units and of those working at the  Headquar-
\nters.  There  was also no difference in\t the  qualifications
\nrequired  for  appointment in the  two\testablishments.\t The
\nservice\t of the staff from the Battalions\/Units were  trans-
\nferrable to the Headquarters, and in fact some UDAs and LDAs
\nwere transferred from Battalions\/Units to the  Headquarters.
\nWhat was more noteworthy was that many who were\t transferred
\nfrom the
\n730<\/span>
\nUnits\/Battalions  to  the Headquarters were  so\t transferred
\nwithout\t either applying the criterion of seniority or\tsub-
\njecting\t the staff to any selection process. The result\t was
\nthat those who were juniors and less experienced and\/or less
\nqualified  were transferred to the Headquarters\t arbitrarily
\nand  had  been\treceiving higher emoluments  than  the\tmore
\ndeserving ones either on account of their seniority,  quali-
\nfications or merit. It was also the contention of the appel-
\nlant that the Central Record and Pay Accounts Office situat-
\ned  at the Headquarters was not a part of the  Headquarters-
\nestablishment  but  was a separate Unit\t having\t merely\t its
\noffice\tat the place where the Headquarters  were  situated.
\nHence  even the practice of paying higher emoluments to\t the
\nstaff  of  the\tHeadquarters could not\tbe  invoked  in\t the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
    6. The contention of the respondent namely, the Union of
\nIndia,\twas that the Central Record and Pay Accounts  Office
\nwas  a part of the Headquarters establishment and hence\t the
\nhigher\temoluments  paid to the staff  at  the\tHeadquarters
\ncompared to their counter-part in the Units\/Battalions\twere
\njustified. It was also their contention that for appointment
\nto  the\t post  of UDAs and LDAs at the C.R.  and  P.A.O.,  a
\nhigher qualification was required, and their duties and\t the
\nresponsibilities  were different and of a higher order\tthan
\nthose of their counter-part at the Units\/Battalions. It\t was
\nfurther\t submitted on their behalf that there was  no  arbi-
\ntrary  transfer of the UDAs and LDAs from the  Units\/Battal-
\nions  to the Headquarters, and they were transferred on\t the
\nbasis of merits.\n<\/p>\n
    7. It appears from the Judgment of the Tribunal,  howev-
\ner,  that  the Tribunal considered only the question  as  to
\nwhether\t the  Central Record and Pay Accounts Office  was  a
\npart  of the establishment of the Headquarters or was  inde-
\npendent\t of  it, and contrary to the contention of  the\t re-
\nspondent–Union of India, came to the conclusion that is was
\nindependent  of the establishment of the Force at the  Head-
\nquarters.  Having thus come to the conclusion, the  Tribunal
\nproceeded to hold that the Central Records Officer and\tUnit
\nPay  & Accounts Officer (hereinafter referred to as CRO\t and
\nUPAO)  at the Headquarters “being entrusted with the  duties
\nof  higher  responsibility and of  controlling\tnature”\t the
\ngrant  of the higher scale of pay to the  ministerial  staff
\nthereof\t was justified. The Tribunal further  observed\tthat
\n“as  a matter of fact these staff are enjoying the scale  of
\npay allowed to staff of the Headquarters since its inception
\nin 1962”. The Tribunal gave this additional reason to justi-
\nfy higher emoluments paid to the UDAs and LDAs at the  Head-
\nquarters.\n<\/p>\n
731<\/span><\/p>\n
    8. It is obvious from the decision of the Tribunal\tthat
\nin  the\t first\tinstance the Tribunal did not  go  into\t the
\nquestion as to whether the staff appointed at the  Headquar-
\nters  required higher qualifications. Secondly, it  did\t not
\nconsider  the grievance of the appellant whether  the  staff
\nwas  transferred from the Units\/Battalions to the  Headquar-
\nters arbitrarily and without either considering their  sein-
\nority  or subjecting them to a selection  process.  Thirdly,
\nthe Tribunal has nowhere discussed as to in what respect the
\nduties and responsibilities of the staff at the Headquarters
\nare  different and higher in nature than those of the  staff
\nat  the Units\/Battalions. There is only a statement made  in
\nthat behalf in paragraph 17 of the judgment without  assign-
\ning  any reason for it. What is further, there is a  contra-
\ndiction\t between the finding recorded by the  Tribunal\tthat
\nthe  CRO  and UPAO at the Headquarters is  quite  “distinct”
\nestablishment  from the range  Headquarters\/Battalions,\t and
\nthe justification made by it of the higher emoluments of the
\nstaff at the Headquarters on the ground that they are enjoy-
\ning the same as allowed to the other staff of the  Headquar-
\nters  since  its inception in 1962. The\t Tribunal  has\tthus
\nobviously  missed  the\tsubstance of the  grievance  of\t the
\nappellant namely, that if as is alleged by the appellant and
\ncontrary  to the contention of the Union of India,  the\t CRO
\nand  UPAO at the Headquarters is a different unit and not  a
\npart  of  the Headquarters, then the staff attached  to\t the
\noffice\tat  the Headquarters is not entitled  to  emoluments
\nhigher\tthan those drawn by the staff of  the  Units\/Battal-
\nions.  The  payment of higher emoluments to the\t said  staff
\nmerely on the ground that the establishment is at the  place
\nwhere  the  Headquarters is situate,  is  discriminatory  as
\nagainst the staff at the Units\/Battalions since it is in  no
\nway  different from the other Units. This is apart from\t the
\ngrievance  of  the  appellant that there  is  no  difference
\neither\tin  the nature of work and duties of the two  or  in
\ntheir  qualifications and that the services of the staff  at
\nthe Units\/Battalions are transferrable to the Headquarters.\n<\/p>\n
    9.\tThere is, however, some substance in the  submission
\nadvanced  by  the learned counsel for the  respondents\tthat
\nbefore the Tribunal no sufficient material was placed by the
\nappellant to show, firstly; that the nature of work, and the
\nduties and the responsibilities of the two were the same and
\nthe qualifications for appointment at the two establishments
\nwere  also  similar. It was also not shown to  the  Tribunal
\nthat those who were transferred from the Units\/Battalions to
\nthe Headquarters were transferred arbitrarily without either
\ntaking into consideration their seniority or subjecting them
\nto  the process of selection. The Tribunal will have  there-
\nfore,  to  apply its mind to these aspects  and\t record\t its
\nfinding as to whether although the CRO and
\n732<\/span>
\nUPAO is not a part of the establishment of the Headquarters,
\nthe  higher emoluments would be justified on account of\t the
\nsaid other factors.\n<\/p>\n
    10.\t While therefore, the finding given by the  Tribunal
\nthat CR and PAO at the Headquarters is a different unit\t and
\nnot  a part of the establishment of the Headquarters is\t not
\ndisturbed  by us, we remand the matter to the  Tribunal\t for
\nrecording  a finding on (i) whether the\t qualifications\t for
\nappointment  at the two establishments viz; CRO and UPAO  at
\nthe Headquarters and at the Units are different, (ii) wheth-
\ner the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the UDAs
\nand LDAs at the Headquarters is of a higher order than\tthat
\nof  those  at the Units\/ Battalions and\t (iii)\twhether\t the
\ntransfer  of  the staff from the Units\/\t Battalions  to\t the
\nHeadquarters  was done arbitrarily and without applying\t any
\ntest.  The Tribunal will give a proper opportunity  to\tboth
\nthe  sides to place the relevant material on  the  aforesaid
\npoints\tbefore\tit and give its findings  on  the  aforesaid
\naspects\t and  will also decide whether on that\taccount\t the
\ndifference in the emoluments of the two is justified.\n<\/p>\n
    11.\t The appeal is allowed accordingly. The Tribunal  is
\ndirected  to dispose of the matter according to law  in\t the
\nlight of what is stated hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
The parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
T.N.A\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n733<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1212, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 727 Author: P Sawant Bench: Sawant, P.B. PETITIONER: GOPIKA RANJAN CHOUDHARY Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/10\/1989 BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. MISRA RANGNATH […]<\/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-221101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989 - 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\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989\" \/>\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=\"1989-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-30T15:58:17+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=\"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\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-30T15:58:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989\"},\"wordCount\":1794,\"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\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989\",\"name\":\"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-30T15:58:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989 - 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\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-30T15:58:17+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989","datePublished":"1989-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-30T15:58:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989"},"wordCount":1794,"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\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989","name":"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-30T15:58:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopika-ranjan-choudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-25-october-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopika Ranjan Choudhary vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 October, 1989"}]},{"@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\/221101","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=221101"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221101\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}