{"id":233454,"date":"1998-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998"},"modified":"2016-11-17T21:57:16","modified_gmt":"2016-11-17T16:27:16","slug":"vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998","title":{"rendered":"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998<\/div>\n
Bench: K. Venkataswami, A.P. Misra<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nVIJAYA KUMAR SHROTRIYA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/02\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nK. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     The short\tquestion raised is, whether the appellant is
\nentitled to  the benefit  of his earlier service rendered in
\nthe Irrigation Department for his promotion and seniority in
\nthe Public  Works Department  (PWD). The  foundation for the
\nimpugned order\tdated 19th  August, 1993, is the decision of
\nthe High  Court in  Gokaran Singh  v.  State  of  U.P  (Writ
\nPetition  No,\t4396  of  1990),  in  which  the  appellant,
\nadmittedly, was\t not a\tparty wherein  it was  held that the
\nbenefit for the said earlier period was not admissible.\n<\/p>\n
     On 25th August, 1962, the appellant was appointed on ad
\nhoc  basis   as\t Assistant   Engineer  in   the\t  irrigation
\nDepartment. In\tSeptember, 1962,  interview was\t held in the
\ncombined  services   of\t Uttar\tPradesh\t for  the  posts  or
\nAssistant  Engineers   in  Public   Works  Department  (PWD)
\nIrrigation Department by the U.P. Public Service Commission.
\nThe appellant was recommended at Sl. No.55. In view of this,
\nhe was\tallotted the  Public Works Department. On 29th July,
\n1963, the  Public Works\t Department approved the appellant’s
\nappointment and\t indicated the\tappellant’s merit at Sl. No.\n<\/p>\n
21. On\t8th August,  1963, the\tChief Engineer,\t PWD, issued
\nletter of  his appointment.  However, the  appellant was not
\nrelieved  by  the  Irrigation  Department,  inspite  of\t his
\nconsent earlier to join PWD through a letter dated 10th May,
\n1963. So, he continued to work in the Irrigation Department.
\nIn 1965,  another competitive  examination was\theld by\t the
\nsaid Commission\t for substantive  permanent vacancies in the
\nPublic Works  Department. On  13th  September  ,  1967,\t the
\nappellant was  again selected  and appointed  through letter
\ndated  23rd  November,\t1967.  On  1st\tJanuary,  1968,\t the
\nappellant joined  the post  of Assistant  Engineer  in\tPWD.
\nSubsequently, on  10th October,\t 1968, appellant’s  case is,
\nthat he\t was transferred  from the  Irrigation Department to
\nthe PWD.  By means  of Government  Order dated 19th October,
\n1968, it was directed that Assistant Engineers in the Public
\nWorks, Irrigation and L.S.B.E. Departments, who came through
\ncompetitive examination\t and are  working in any of the said
\nDepartments, if allocated to any such other department, they
\nwould be deemed to have been transferred from one department
\nto the\tother. In  June, 1972, the appellant was promoted to
\nthe post  of Executive Engineer, PWD. This was only possible
\nby  accepting\tthe  earlier   service\tin   the  Irrigation
\nDepartment, since after the selection through Public Service
\nCommission in  the year 1962. Admittedly this appointment by
\npromotion was  not challenged.\tIt is  urged, later when the
\nquestion of the appellant’s appointment to the post of Super
\nintending Engineer  came up for consideration, his right was
\nignored on  the same  basis, viz. absence of minimum request
\nto period  in the  PWD. This issue if at all could have been
\nraised when  he was  promoted as Executive Engineer in 1972.
\nTo raise  it now  after the  being  Executive  Engineer\t for
\ntwentyone years\t is neither justifiable nor valid. It is not
\nin dispute  if his  service in\tthe Irrigation Department is
\ntaken  into   consideration,  he   is  qualified  for  being
\nappointed as such. Aggrieved by this the appellant filed his
\nClaim Petition\tbefore the  U.P. Public Service Tribunal. On
\n22nd June,  1992 the Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition and
\ndirected  the\trespondents  to\t  consider  posting  of\t the
\nappellant as  Superintending Engineer  on the  basis of\t the
\nservice records\t as that  existed on  1st December, 1962. It
\nalso held  that the  basis of  such placement  would also be
\nmerit list  of 1962  issued by the Public Service Commission
\nand  thus   the\t appellant   would  be\t entitled  to  other
\nconsequential benefits. Accordingly, the Government by order
\ndated 20th  February, 1993 fixed his seniority at serial No.
\n319A. It,  however, recorded  that this\t would be subject to
\nthe  orders  of\t the  higher  courts  where  the  matter  of
\nfinalisation  of   the\tprinciples  of\tseniority  is  still
\npending. As aforesaid, the decision then came in the case of
\nGokaran Singh  (supra). The  High Court\t in that  case\twith
\nreference to  the case\tof P.D.Aggarwal\t & Ors.\t v. State of
\nU.P. & Ors.<\/a>: (1987) 3 SCC 622 held in the matter of inter se
\ndispute, a claim of seniority by a person could only be from
\nthe date  he becomes member of that service. In other words,
\nit would  be from  the date  one  joined  the  Public  Works
\nDepartment from\t the Irrigation\t Department. In\t the case of
\nappellant, it  would only  be when  he joined PWD after 1965
\nselection.  Any\t period\t prior,\t would\tnot  be\t admissible.
\nFurther the  Government itself\ttreated such  cases and\t the
\nappellant’s  case   to\tbe  a  case  of\t transfer  from\t the
\nIrrigation Department  to the  Public Works  Department\t for
\nvalid reason.  The reason  was that  for no  fault  of\this,
\ninspite of being selected in 1962 on account of for a public
\ncause he  was not  relieved from  the Irrigation Department.
\nHence, the said period has to be computed.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  referred to the letters dated 18th June,
\n1963, of  the  Chief  Engineer,\t Irrigation  Department\t and
\nletter dated  15th September, 1963 of the Joint Secretary to
\nthe Government of Uttar Pradesh to bring home his point that
\nthe appellant  was not\trelieved  in  1963  from  Irrigation
\nDepartment in  public interest. Inspite of all this, on 19th
\nAugust, 1993,  the appellant  was served  with a  letter  by
\nwhich the  State  of  U.P.  withdrew  its  earlier  decision
\nconferring  higher  seniority  to  the\tappellant.  On\t23rd
\nAugust,\t 1993,\trespondents’  impugned\torder  excluded\t the
\nappellant from\tthe promotion  to the post of Superintending
\nEngineer and  his junior  was  promoted.  This\tled  to\t the
\nfilling of the Writ Petition in the High Court in September,
\n1993 for  quashing the\taforesaid order\t dated 19th  August,
\n1993 and  for directions  to the  respondent to maintain his
\nseniority at Serial No. 319A and promoted him to the post of
\nSuperintending Engineer.  The High  Court dismissed the Writ
\nPetition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed
\nby special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  heard learned counsel for the parties at great
\nlength.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t from letter  dated 20th July, 1993 from the
\nDeputy Secretary to Government, that the appellants name was
\napproved for  appointment on temporary basis for the post of
\nAssistant Engineer  (Civil) in\tPublic Works Department as a
\nresult\tof   the  interview   held  by\tthe  Public  Service
\nCommission in  August\/September,  1962\tand  was  placed  at
\nSerial No.  21. Thereafter  by means  of  Office  Memorandum
\ndated 8th  August, 1963,  the appellant was appointed on the
\nsaid post  with a  direction to\t join  the  duties  by\t15th
\nSeptember, 1963.  The appellant gave his consent for joining
\nthe Public  Works Department.  Thereafter, as aforesaid, the
\nChief Engineer,\t Irrigation Department\tthrough\t his  letter
\ndate 18th July, 1963, did not relieve the appellant from the
\nIrrigation Department  in  public  interest  which  is\talso
\nconfirmed by  a letter\tfrom  the  Joint  Secretary  to\t the
\nGovernment of Uttar Pradesh dated 15th September. 1992.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  in this  background the  question is,  once\t the
\nappellant being\t selected through  a combined test held both
\nfor Irrigation\tand Public  Works Department in 1962 and not
\nbeing permitted\t to join Public Works Department, inspite of
\nhe having  opted, should  he be\t deprived  of  the  services
\nrendered by  him in Irrigation Department for the purpose of
\ncomputing his  eligibility, seniority  and promotion  in the
\nPublic Works  Department. In  this regard  we also find G.O.
\nNo.  822  EBR\/XXIII-PWD\t dated\t19th  October,\t1968,  which
\ndecided\t such\tcases  to  be  of  transfer  inter  se\tfrom
\nIrrigation Department  to Public  Works Department  and vice
\nversa  of  the\tpersons\t who  were  recruited  as  Assistant
\nEngineers through  combined examinations.  By  this  it\t was
\nclarified  such\t  persons,  in\tcase  are  placed  from\t one
\ndepartment to other, will be deemed to have been transferred
\nfrom one  department to\t the other.  It\t further  clarified,
\nwhere any difficulty is felt in fixation of their pay in the
\ndepartment to  which they  are transferred,  that  could  be
\nresolved under F.R.22 of Finance Hand Book Volume 11 part 11
\nto IV.\tTo the\tlatter\tpart,  we  are\tnot  concerned,\t the
\nconcluding words of this G.O. are:\n<\/p>\n
     “Since  the   services   of   these
\n     Assistant Engineers  will be deemed
\n     to\t have\tbeen  transferred,  they
\n     would also\t be entitled to Transfer
\n     T.A., joining time for the journeys
\n     performed\tby  them  in  connection
\n     with  their   transfer   from   one
\n     department to another.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus stand\t of the\t Government is absolutely clear, and
\non this\t basis the  appellant would  be treated to have been
\ntransferred  from  Irrigation  Department  to  Public  Works
\nDepartment when\t he was\t appointed\/absorbed  in\t the  Public
\nWorks Department  on the  basis of combined examination held
\nin the year 1965. We also find Office Memorandum No. 5060\/23
\nIrri-1\/42\/WP\/80 dated  12th July,  1982 which reiterated the
\naforesaid Government  policy of counting the services in the
\nIrrigation Department towards the Public Works Department it
\nclearly spelled out its policy relying on the decision given
\nearlier by  the High  Court in\tAbdul Kher vs. Chief Justice
\nAllahabad (1971\t SLR, 25)  that the  benefit of\t the service
\nrendered in  the erstwhile department can be granted in case
\na person  is transferred  from one  department\tto  another.
\nRelevant  port\t of  this   Office  Memorandum\t is   quoted
\nhereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
     “As  per\tthe  provision\t in  the
\n     judgment in  matters of  Abdul Kher
\n     v.\t Chief\tJustice\t Allahabad  1970
\n     SLR-25, Hon.  High Court  has  held
\n     that benefit  in seniority\t can  be
\n     given   on\t   transfer   from   one
\n     Department to  another  Department,
\n     if there  is no  prohibition on the
\n     rules and\tbenefit of past services
\n     can be  given and cannot be held as
\n     unfair.  In   the\tpresent\t matter,
\n     there is  no  prohibition\tin  1936
\n     service rules,  but  in  Government
\n     Order  No\t 23  I.A.-144\/64   dated
\n     13.6.1963\t provides    that    the
\n     services rendered\tby  officers  in
\n     that  the\t services  rendered   by
\n     officers  in   P.W.D.,   shall   be
\n     counted  in  Irrigation  Department
\n     after joining  and shall  draw  the
\n     same salary as they were drawing in
\n     PWD. After careful consideration as
\n     natural justice  and legally, it is
\n     decided that  the benefit\tof  past
\n     service of\t other department  is to
\n     be given in seniority fixing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Tribunal  also gave  a finding\t in  favour  of\t the
\nappellant  that\t there\tis  no\treason\tnot  to\t follow\t the
\nseniority as mentioned in the merit list of 1962 made by the
\nPublic Service Commission.\n<\/p>\n
     We find,  the appellant  in  this\tcase  could  not  be
\nfaulted\t as  inspite  of  he  being  selected  through\t1962
\ncombined selection  examination and  he having consented was
\nnot  relieved  by  the\tIrrigation  Department\tdue  to\t his
\nrequirement  in\t  that\tdepartment.  This  fact,  as  stated
\nearlier, is  also recorded in Government’s Office Memorandum
\nNO.402 EPOR.  12.3.93.\t 915\/91 dated  20th February,  1993.
\nThis is\t also referred in the letter of the joint Secretary,
\nGovernment of  U.P., Irrigation\t Department,  to  the  Joint
\nSecretary, Public  Works Department  dated  19th  September,
\n1992. The main reason, to reject the claim by the Government
\nis the\tdecision of Gokaram Singh (supra) which was also the
\nbasis of  the impugned\tjudgment  of  the  High\t Court\tviz.
\nrelying on P.D.Aggarwal’s case (supra). This decision merely
\ndeclares, a  claim of  seniority could only be from the date
\none is\tborne in  service. But\tthe question still is, as to
\nwhen did  the appellant\t enter service\tor could  be said to
\nhave been  borne in  service. If the appellant could be said
\nto have\t entered service  only on  his\tappointment  in\t the
\nPublic Works  Department as a result of combined examination
\nheld in 1965, he would be borne in service then. But in case
\nhis selection  and appointment\tin pursuance to the combined
\nselection examination  of 1962\tis accepted this he would be
\nborne in  service then,\t we find  he not being relieved from
\nthe Irrigation\tDepartment for\tpublic purpose\tcoupled with
\nthe policy  in such  cases to  treat it\t to  be\t a  case  of
\ntransfer  for  all  this.  We  unhesitatingly  come  to\t the
\nirresistable conclusion\t that the appellant would be treated
\nto have\t been borne  in service\t on the\t date  when  he\t was
\nappointed through  1962 combined  selection examination\t and
\nnot in 1965 examination. We have already referred to various
\nletter as  also the decision of the Government treating such
\nplacement in  the departments  inter se\t to  be\t a  case  of
\ntransfer. The  government throughout,  has also\t treated the
\nappellant  to\tbe  a\tcase  of  transfer  from  Irrigation
\nDepartment to  Public Works  Department. His  claim was only
\nrejected by  the Government  as aforesaid  in  view  of\t the
\ndecision in  the case  of Gokaran  Singh (supra)  relying on
\nP.D.Aggarwal (supra),  about  this  we\twould  be  referring
\nlater.\n<\/p>\n
     We feel  that it would be unjust, to disallow the claim
\nof the appellant inspite of the being selected and appointed
\nto the\tP.W.D. through\t1962 Commission Selection when on no
\nfault of  his if  he was  not being permitted to join in the
\nPublic Works Department. In Shri Anand Chandra Das vs. State
\nof Orissa  & Ors.  : JI\t 1988 (1) S.C.98, on the question of
\nthe seniority of the appellant who had gone on deputation to
\nlabour department  as Senior  Auditor, it was held, since he
\nnever agreed  to go  on deputation,  therefore his seniority
\nhas to\tbe re-fixed  by\t including  period  in\tthe  Revenue
\nDepartment and thus notional promotion to be given.\n<\/p>\n
     “We find  sufficient force\t int  he
\n     aforesaid contention of the learned
\n     counsel\tappearing     for    the
\n     appellant. That  the appellant  was
\n     appointed as  a Senior  Auditor  on
\n     Revenue  on   28.10.1996\tis   not
\n     disputed. It  is also  not disputed
\n     that his services were brought over
\n     to\t the   Labour\tDepartments   on
\n     requisition being\tmade to\t all the
\n     Government Departments  and on  his
\n     name being sponsored by the Revenue
\n     Department. It  is\t no  doubt  true
\n     that  the\t Labour\t Department  had
\n     indicated that  the seniority  will
\n     be determined  on the  basis of the
\n     date  of\tjoining\t of  the  Labour
\n     Department itself but the appellant
\n     had no  point of time agreed to the
\n     said condition,  and on  the  other
\n     hand, unequivocally  expressed  his
\n     unwillingness to  come over  to the
\n     Labour Department\tby letter  dated
\n     6.11.1970 and without consideration
\n     of the  same the Revenue Department
\n     relieved him  requiring him to join
\n     in the  Labour Department.\t In  the
\n     aforesaid\tpremisses   we\tsee   no
\n     justification   in\t  ignoring   the
\n     service rendered  by the  appellant
\n     as\t a   Senior  Auditor  under  the
\n     Revenue Department.  The  Tribunal,
\n     in\t   our\t  considered\topinion,
\n     committed\tan  error  by  directing
\n     that seniority  of the appellant in
\n     the cadre of Senior Auditor will be
\n     determined by  taking his\tservices
\n     from the  date he joined the Labour
\n     Department.   In\tour   considered
\n     opinion   the   services\tof   the
\n     appellant as  a Senior Auditor from
\n     28.10.1995\t shall\t be  taken  into
\n     account   for    determining    his
\n     seniority in  the cadre  of  Senior
\n     Auditor in the Labour Department.”
\n     In K.Madhavan  & Anr.  etc. vs.  Union of\tIndia & Ors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
etc. 1988  (1) SCR  421, also  there  was  a  dispute  about
\nseniority and  the questions for consideration were, whether
\nthe petitioner’s  appointment should  be treated as transfer
\nand whether  the earlier  period spent to be counted towards
\nseniority or not. The Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
     “There  is\t  not  much   difference
\n     between  deputation  and  transfer.
\n     Indeed,  when  a  deputationist  is
\n     permanently absorbed in the CBI, he
\n     is under  words, deputation may b e
\n     regarded as  a  transfer  from  one
\n     government department  to\tanother.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It will  be against  all  rules  of
\n     service   jurisprudence,\t it    a
\n     government\t  servant    holding   a
\n     particular\t  post is transferred to
\n     the same or an equivalent period of
\n     h is service in the post before his
\n     transfer\tis    not   taken   into
\n     consideration  in\t computing   his
\n     seniority in  the transferred post.
\n     The transfer  cannot wipe\tout  his
\n     length of\tservice in the post from
\n     which he had been transferred.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Regarding\tthe   question\tof  length  of\tservice\t for
\ncomputing seniority,  whether could it be only from the date
\nof his\tappointment on\tpermanent post\tin the\tyear 1969 or
\nwill also  include the\tperiod when  he was appointed on the
\ntemporary  post\t in  the  year\t1962,  the  appointed  on  a
\nsubstantive vacancy  on a  temporary post after due approval
\nby the\tPublic\tService\t Commission  if\t fulfils  all  other
\nessential criteria  as prescribed  he shall  be deemed to be
\nborne in service from such date of his appointment. In other
\nwords his  entire length of service from that date should be
\nreckoned in  computing seniority. This point is well settled
\nand is\treasserted in  the aforesaid  case  of\tP.D.Aggarwal
\n(supra) itself.\n<\/p>\n
     We further\t find this  question whether the said period
\nto be  computed for  the purpose  of seniority\twas a matter
\nwhich the  Government ought  to have  considered and we feel
\nmust have  been considered while appointing him as Executive
\nEngineer in  Public Works  Department which  was in the year
\n1972. He  suffered from\t the same disability for the post of
\nSuperintending Engineer.  But after  due considerations then
\nafter appointing  him two  decades back, none challenging it
\nthen, to  raise it now, has no justiciable reasons to stand.
\nBy that\t time the  policy of  the Government  was also\twell
\nknown which  is evident from the aforesaid G.U.of 1968. When
\nthe question  of appointment as Superintending Engineer came
\nup for\tconsideration in  the year  1993 i.e.  more than  21
\nyears after  appellant’s appointment  as Executive Engineer,
\nwe do  not find, it was proper for the Government, to revert
\nback and  deprive the appellant by withdrawing his seniority
\nby  excluding\tthe  period  he\t worked\t in  the  Irrigation
\nDepartment.\n<\/p>\n
     Even otherwise,  we  find\tfrom  the  record  that\t the
\nGovernment’s own  stand and its policy accepted the stand of
\nthe appellant  but the\treason for  this change\t was only in
\nview of the decision of the High Court, as aforesaid, in the
\ncase of\t Gokaran Singh\trelying on the case of P.D.Aggarwal.
\nThe High  Court committed  wrong by wrong application of the
\nprinciple of   P.D.Aggarwal.  The  same\t is  not  eroded  or
\nviolated when  the appellants  appointment  to\tthe  PWD  is
\ntreated to be by way of transfer from Irrigation Department.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court did  not properly\tscrutinize the facts
\nand circumstances  of this  case and  merely on the basis of
\nthe earlier  decision of  its Court in the aforesaid Gokaran
\nSingh’s case (supra) rejected his claim.\n<\/p>\n
     We find  that both,  the Government’s  Order dated 19th
\nAugust, 1993  and the  impugned order  of the High Court are
\nnor sustainable in the eye of law and are hereby quashed. On
\nthe facts of this case, we hold that the appellant’s service
\nin the Irrigation Department since after he was selected and
\nappointed in  1962 in  the  PWD\t through  combined  services
\nexamination, cannot  be excluded for fixing his seniority in
\nthe PWD.  Hence the  period, the  appellant  worked  in\t the
\nIrrigation Department,\tbe treated  to be  valid period\t for
\ncomputing his seniority in the PWD.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent Government will now fix the seniority of
\nthe appellant  in the light of the above observations and if
\nany person if affected, the fixation to be made after giving
\ndue  opportunity   to  the   person  concerned.\t  Consequent
\npromotion and other benefits flowing thereunder will also be
\nadmissible to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, this  appeal succeeds  and the impugned
\nGovernment Order  dated 19th  August, 1993  and the impugned
\norder of  the High  Court in  the Writ Petition filed by the
\nappellant are  quashed with  the aforesaid  observations and
\ndirections. Cost on the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998 Bench: K. Venkataswami, A.P. Misra PETITIONER: VIJAYA KUMAR SHROTRIYA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/02\/1998 BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R The short question raised is, […]<\/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-233454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998 - 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\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-17T16:27:16+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-17T16:27:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3187,\"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\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998\",\"name\":\"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-17T16:27:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998 - 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\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-17T16:27:16+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998","datePublished":"1998-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-17T16:27:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998"},"wordCount":3187,"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\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998","name":"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-17T16:27:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-kumar-shrotriya-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-13-february-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 February, 1998"}]},{"@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\/233454","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=233454"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233454\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}