{"id":236174,"date":"2010-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-03T01:13:18","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T19:43:18","slug":"union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The … on 19 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The … on 19 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nLPASW no. 27 of 2006 AND LPASW  no. 347 of 2000 AND LPASW no. 348 of 2000        \nUnion of India and ors.\nPetitioners\n1)Amar Nath and ors. \n2)Mohan Lal Baya and ors \n3)Aya Singh and ors \n4)Ram Dass and ors.  \nRespondent  \n!Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate \n^M\/s. Rakesh Sharma and Anil Mahajan,Advocates   \n\nHonble Mr. Justice Dr. Aftab H. Saikia, Chief Justice\nHonble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge   \nDate:  19.08.2010\n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n
1)LPASW no. 27 of 2006\n<\/p>\n
2) LPASW  no. 347 of 2000\n<\/p>\n
3) LPASW no. 348 of 2000\n<\/p>\n
4) LPASW no. 37 of 2001
\nDr. Saikia, CJ:\n<\/p>\n
Heard Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Rakesh Sharma and
\nMr. Anil Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
This batch of Letters Patent Appeals being LPA nos. 347\/2000, 348\/2000, 37\/2001 and
\n27\/2006, wherein identical question of law has been raised, based on similar fact situation, has
\nbeen taken up for final disposal on being remitted by the Supreme Court by order dated
\nOctober 6, 2005 passed in Civil Appeal no. 5825 of 2000  (Union of India & ors. v. Amar Nath
\nand<\/a> ors)  to this Court for fresh consideration on merits.\n<\/p>\n
The order dated 6.10.2005 of the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-
\nHeard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
In both these appeals, the basic issue is as to whether the judgment of this Court in Writ
\nPetition No. 40\/91 which based its views on an earlier decision in Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter &
\nOrs Vs. Union of India & anr. AIR 1989 1215 applies or the one rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.
\n3999-4023\/1998 and connected cases which were disposed of on 31st July, 1991. In Civil
\nAppeal No. 5825 of 2000, learned Single Judge had relied on a decision in SSR of Examiners
\nMuradnagar Ordinance Factory case (supra). In appeal, the Division Bench observed that first
\nthe directions as contained in the learned Single Judges order were to be complied with before
\nthe issue could be decided, in the background of the subsequent judgment of this Court and its
\napplicability to the facts of the present case. The course adopted by the Division Bench
\ncertainly is not proper. On that ground alone, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside
\nand the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. In the
\nconnected Civil Appeal no. 7512 of 2004, the High Court relied upon the decision in Bhagwan
\nSahais case (supra) and the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court which is the subject
\nmatter of the connected civil appeal. Above being the position, we remit the matter back to the
\nHigh Court for fresh consideration. The High Court will consider which of these judgments
\napplies to the facts of the case and take decision in accordance with law. The appeals are
\naccordingly disposed  of.  Since the matter is pending since long, we request the concerned
\nHigh Court to dispose of the matters as early as practicable preferably within four months from
\nthe date of receipt of the order.<\/p>\n
The above order was passed by the Apex Court while disposing of an appeal preferred by the
\nUnion of India challenging the judgment and order dated 12.3.1999 passed by Division Bench
\nof this Court in LPA No. IA-1\/97 affirming the judgment and order dated 12.3.1997 rendered
\nby the Writ Court in Writ Petition no. 1393\/1994 preferred by  one Amar Nath along with 34
\nothers, respondent nos. 1 to 35, in LPASW no. 27\/2006.\n<\/p>\n
Initially Writ Petition being no. 1393\/1994 was preferred by Amar Nath and 34 others being,
\nthe semi-skilled grade employees of Military Engineering Service Department(for short MES),
\nand serving in the capacity  of Valveman at different Stations of MES in the State of Jammu
\nand Kashmir since 1973, claiming that although they are placed on the category of semi-skilled
\nworkers, since they are performing duties as are assigned to the skilled workers as Valveman,
\nthey are entitled to get the benefit  of grade of Rs. 260-400  payable to skilled category with
\neffect from October 16, 1981 instead of Rs. 210-290 in which grade presently they are made to
\nwork. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of mandamus was sought commanding the respondents
\nto decorate the petitioners therein, now the respondents in LPASW no. 27\/2006 with the grade
\nof Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16, 1981 by treating them under the category of
\nskilled workers instead of semi-skilled one.\n<\/p>\n
6.     The Writ Court by  its judgment and order dated March 12, 1997, after hearing the learned
\ncounsel for the parties  and relying upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered on July 31,
\n1991 in Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991, wherein the ratio of the decision in Bhagwan Sahai
\nCarpenter & ors v. Union of India & ors reported in AIR 1989 SC 1215 was applied to, granted
\nrelief to all the 35 writ petitioners\/respondents herein in LPASW no. 27\/2006, directing the
\nrespondents-Union of India & ors\/appellants in LPA no. 27\/2006 to place the  said writ
\npetitioners in the grade of Rs. 260-400  with effect from October 16, 1981 within a period of
\ntwo months from the date of passing the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
7.        Being aggrieved by the above judgment and direction, the Union of India preferred a
\nLetters Patent Appeal before this Court  being LPASW no. IA-1\/1997. However, the Appellate
\nCourt dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and order dated March 3, 1997 passed by
\nthe learned Single Judge was made in Writ Petition no. 1393\/1994.\n<\/p>\n
8.         Immediately after the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Union of India, as
\nmentioned above, a series of writ petitions have been filed before this Court by the employees
\nsimilarly situated seeking their upgradation from semi-skilled category of grade of Rs. 210-290
\nto the skilled category workers in the grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16.10.1981.\n<\/p>\n
   Writ Petition being SWP no. 2758\/1999 was preferred by one Mohan Lal Baya along with 10
\nothers and the Writ Court by its order dated February 21, 2000, allowed the writ petition with a
\ndirection  that the writ petitioners therein were entitled to get the same relief as was granted by
\nthis Court in writ petition, SWP no. 1393\/1994 disposed of on March 12, 1997.
\nOrder dated February 21, 2000 may be re-produced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        On 27th of Dec1999, this petition was         admitted for 8th of Feb 2000.
\nRespondents have not filed any counter.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief
\nas was granted by this Court in writ petition no. 1393\/94. This was decided on  12th of
\nMarch 1997. It is further stated that this decision has since been upheld by a Division Bench of
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
        In view of the above, this petition is disposed         of with a direction that the
\nrespondents would       take notice of the observations made by this    Court in SWP no.
\n1393\/1994 and shall take appropriate steps. A decision would be taken and communicated to
\nthe petitioners within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order alongwith a
\ncopy of order passed in the writ petition no. 1393\/1994 is made available to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        Disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
The above order passed by learned Single Judge in SWP no. 2758\/1999 has been assailed in
\nLPASW no. 347\/2000.\n<\/p>\n
The other two writ petitions being SWP nos. 1351\/1999 and 2272\/1999 were preferred by Ram
\nDass and 94 others and Aya Singh with 31 others respectively.\n<\/p>\n
Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the Writ Court by its judgments and orders dated
\n23.7.1999 and 15.10.1999 respectively, granting the same relief as directed in SWP no.
\n1393\/1994 disposed of on March 12, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
Union of India and others, as appellant, have preferred Letters Patent Appeals  before this
\nCourt, against both the above judgments and orders through LPASW no. 37\/2001 and LPASW
\nno. 348\/2000 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
All these Letters Patent Appeals raising exactly the same question of law, have been heard
\nanalogously in terms of direction issued by the Supreme Court by its order dated October 6,
\n2005 and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.\n<\/p>\n
 The short question involved in this bunch of Letters Patent Appeals is as to whether the
\nrespondents in these appeals, being the semi-skilled employees under the MES, are entitled to
\nupgradation to the category of skilled employees of  grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect from
\nOctober 16, 1981. Be it mention that in deciding the issue at hand, this Court requires to
\nconsider, as per direction of the Supreme Court by its order dated 6.10.2005, as to which of the
\njudgments, i.e., Bhagwan Sahais Case (supra)  or the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ
\nPetition no. 40 of 1991 disposed of on July 31, 1991, along with other connected cases, as
\nreferred to in the order itself, would apply to the facts of the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
17.    A brief narration of the factual matrix of the case is necessary for adequate adjudication
\nof the issue raised in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
18.     Under MES, initially, as has been stated, there were two grades of employees, namely,
\nskilled grade and unskilled grade and all the respondents in these appeals, being in unskilled
\ngrade, along with other employees working in different trades under MES within the skilled
\ngrade used to get the same scale of pay in the skilled grade continuously for years together
\nsince the recommendation of 1st Pay Commission in 1949. Even, as per the recommendations of
\nSecond and Third Pay Commission in 1973, the pay of both skilled and unskilled grade was
\nRs. 210-290.\n<\/p>\n
19.     In order to remove the anomalies, an Expert Classification Committed was constituted
\nby the Government of India in terms of the report of Third Pay Commission and the following
\nfive scales of pay were set out vide communication dated May 11, 1983 sent under the
\nsignatures of Deputy Secretary to Government of India to the Chief of the Army Staff, New
\nDelhi, giving effect of the same from October 16, 1981. The relevant portion of the
\ncommunication dated May 11, 1983 may be quoted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
                        No. 1 (2)\/80\/D\/ IC
\n                          Government of India
\n                           Ministry of Defence
\n                           New Delhi, the 11th May, 83<\/p>\n
The Chief of the Army Staff,
\nNew Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Subject : FITMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF MES IN PAY SCALE
\nRECOMMEDED BY THE THIRD PAY COMMISSION.\n<\/p>\n
Sir,<\/p>\n
        After careful consideration of the recommendations of the Expert Classification
\nCommittee appointed in terms of para 19 of Chapter 19 of the report of the Third Pay
\nCommission and of the Committee on Common Category Jobs, I am directed to convey the
\nsanction of the President to the following:\n<\/p>\n
Fitment of Industrial Workers in MES in the following five scales of pay as per details set out
\nin Annexure-1.\n<\/p>\n
Category                                        Scale \n\nUnskilled            Rs. 196-3-220-EB-3-232\nSemi-Skilled         Rs.210-4-226-EB-4-250-EB-5-290 \nSkilled                  Rs.260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-366-\n                             EB-8-390-10-400\n\nHighly Skilled Grade II 330-8-370-10-400-EB-480\nHighly Skilled Grade 1 380-12-500-EB-15-560 \n\n<\/pre>\n
Upgradation of posts from the Skilled grade\/highly Skilled grade II to Highly Skilled Grade
\nII\/I respectively in case of jobs enumerated in Annexure-II, in accordance with the following
\nformula:-\n<\/p>\n
Strength of Workers     No. of Posts to be in  Highly Skilled  grade II\/I<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n2<\/span>
\n3<\/span>
\n4<\/span>
\n5<\/span><\/p>\n
And so on, i.e., one additional post in Highly Skilled Grade II or Grade I for every 10 posts in
\nthe Skilled Grade or Highly Skilled Grade II, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
        .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       \n        .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .               \n<\/pre>\n
6.This supersedes the Government orders issued under Ministry of Defence letter of even
\nnumber dated 16th October, 1981, as amended from time to time. This order will take effect
\nfrom 16th Oct 81.\n<\/p>\n
                     7. .       .       .       .       .       .\n<\/p>\n
                     8. .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       \n\n                                                Yours faithfully,\n                                                        Sd\/-\n                                                (RAMA KRISHNA)    \n                DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA          \n                                                \n\n<\/pre>\n
   It may be noticed from the above communication that the semi-skilled category and skilled
\ncategory of Industrial Workers of MES were given the scale of Rs. 210-290 and Rs. 260-400
\nrespectively with effect from October 16, 1981.\n<\/p>\n
21.  The respondents, admittedly, being semi-skilled employees, are   getting the grade of 210-
\n290 from 1973. Now they are claiming that though they are the semi-skilled employees, they
\nare basically working  skilled job and hence they are entitled to get the skilled grade with pay
\nscale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16, 1981, the date on which the order, as quoted
\nabove, was given effect to.\n<\/p>\n
22.     The grievance of the respondents were vindicated initially by the Writ Court by its
\njudgement and order dated March 12, 1997 passed in SWP no. 1393\/1994, which was later on
\nconfirmed by the Appellate Court by its judgement and order dated March 12, 1999 in LPA no.
\nIA-1\/1997, which was renumbered as LPASW no. 27\/2006 on remand from the Supreme
\nCourt. The respondents in other Letters Patent Appeals have also got the same relief.\n<\/p>\n
23.     Meanwhile, Union of India have taken the matter to the Supreme Court, assailing the
\njudgment and order dated March 12, 1999, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
\nLPASW no. 1A-1\/1997 (Union of India and ors. V. Amar Nath and<\/a> ors) and the Supreme Court
\ndisposed of the appeal by its order dated October 6, 2005 , as already reproduced hereinabove,
\nwith a direction for  fresh consideration of the entire matter on merits.\n<\/p>\n
24.         It was also observed by the Apex Court that this Court in deciding this issue  relied
\nupon a decision of Apex Court in Bhagwan Sahais case (supra) and the decision rendered in
\nWrit Petition no. 40 of 1991 disposed of on July 31, 1991 and in view of the same, it was
\ndirected, while remitting the matter to this Court for fresh consideration, to consider which  of
\njudgments would apply to the facts of the case and take decision in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
25.     For the sake of convenience, it would be prudent to quote the initial judgement and
\norder dated March 12, 1997 passed by the Writ Court in SWP no. 1393\/1994, being the
\nbedrock of the entire issue.\n<\/p>\n
Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Shortly stated the claim of the petitioners is that they are working as Semi-skilled Employees
\nwith the respondents from before October 16, 1981. They claim that they are entitled to
\nupgradation to the category of skilled employees with grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. October 16,
\n1981. Except for stating that the matter is delayed the respondents have not stated much on
\nother points particularly the claim of the petitioners that they are in semi-skilled category
\nenjoying the grade of Rs. 210-290 from 1973.\n<\/p>\n
        It is not necessary to mention other facts contained in the petition and the reply since
\nthe matter stands covered by the Apex Court order date July 31, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 40
\nof 1991. To understand the matter and give relief  to the petitioners it is important to quote in
\nextense the decision of the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
        The learned counsel Mr. Hemant Sharma, appears on behalf of the respondents and
\nwaives service of rule. We have heard counsel on both sides and have gone through the relevant
\npapers, the Anomalies Committee Report and the counter filed on behalf of the respondents.
\nWe find from Chapter VIII of the Anomalies Committees Report that the Committee decided
\nthat the existing incumbents in the semi-skilled category, who were in position as on 16th
\nOctober, 1981 in the grade of Rs. 210-290, may be upgraded to the skilled category Rs. 260-
\n400, commensurate with the point-score given by the Committee. So far as fresh induction to
\nthe skilled category was concerned, the Committee formulated certain propositions which are
\nto be found in clauses a  to c of clause(IV) of the reco-mmendations of the Anomalies
\ncommittee in Chapter X of the report. It is, therefore, obvious that those employees who belong
\nto the semi-skilled category and were in position on 16th October, 1981 in the grade of Rs. 210-
\n290 were to be upgraded to the skilled category carrying a scale of Rs. 260-400  commensurate
\nwith the point-score given by the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
                This writ petition has been filed by the Association of Employees and the names
\nof the members on whose behalf it is filed have been set out in Annexure-B to the petition.
\nThe total number of the number shown in Annexure B is 60. However, it is not known who
\nout of them were in position on 16th October 1981. We would, therefore, direct the respondents
\nto verify the service records of these employees and grant the benefit to those who were in
\nposition on 16th October, 1981 in the grade of Rs. 210-290 by upgrading them to the skilled
\ncategory of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. that date on the ratio of this Courts decision in Bhagwan Sahai
\nvs. Union of India (AIR<\/a> 1989 SC 1215). Vide paragraph 11 of the judgment. Those who were
\nnot in position as on 16th October, 1981 in the semi-skilled grade of Rs. 210-290 will be entitled
\nto placement in the skilled category or Rs. 260-400 if they satisfy the requirements of Clauses
\na b and c of Clause (IV) in Chapter X of the Anomalies Committees report to the extent of
\nits acceptance, with or without modifications, by the Government of India. This should be
\nfinalised not later than October 31, 1991. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no order
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n
                Admittedly, the above decision of the Apex Court applies to the petitioners as
\nwell. Therefore, this Writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to extend the same
\nrelief by placing them under Skilled category in the grade of Rs. 260-400 from October 16,
\n1981 within two months from today. The Petition is disposed of accordingly in the aforesaid
\nterms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n
26.     In the backdrop of this fact situation, as quoted hereinabove, Mr. Basotra, learned
\ncounsel appearing for the Union of India has forcibly submitted that the respondents having
\nbeen working in the semi-skilled grade with scale of Rs.210-290 are not at all entitled to the
\ngrade of Rs. 260-400 under the skilled category. According to him, Valvemen do not  fall under
\nthe category  of skilled grade. To substantiate his argument, he relied on the decision of
\nBhagwan Sahais case (supra). Our attention has been drawn specifically to paragraph 6 of the
\ndecision wherein the Government of India recognized only twelve categories of jobs for
\nupgradation from Semi-skilled grade to skilled grade to the exclusion of Valveman. Paragraph 6
\nof Bhagwan Sahais Case (supra) reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        6. On October 15, 1984 a letter was sent to the Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi
\nunder the Signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India wherein it has been
\nmentioned that the President has accorded sanction to the upgradation of the following jobs
\nfrom semi-skilled grade (Rs. 210-290) to the skilled grade (Rs. 260-400):-\n<\/p>\n
Sl. No.                  Job Title\nBook Binder \nSaddler\nBoot Maker \nCarpenter\nPipe Fitter\nPlumber \nMason  \nMoulder \nPainter\/Polisher\nSign Writer\nSawyer \nUpholsterer.   \n<\/pre>\n
27.     That being the clear position, according to the learned counsel for Union of India, there
\nis no scope for the respondents for the entitlement to the skilled grade in the scale of Rs. 260-\n<\/p>\n
400. Mr. Basotra has also put his strong reliance on the affidavit\/objections filed in LPASW no.
\n27\/2006 (Union of India and ors. V. Amar<\/a> nath and ors.)<\/p>\n
28.     On the contrary, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents,
\nsupporting the impugned judgments, has strongly argued that the respondents  are entitled  to
\nget  the skilled grade (Rs. 260-400) in terms of Bhagwan Sahais case (supra) as well as  the
\ndecision of the Apex Court passed on July 31, 1991 in Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991, which was
\nreflected in the initial judgment and order dated March 12, 1997, passed by the Writ Court in
\nSWP no. 1393\/1994, for the simple reason that the services of the respondents have been
\nexploited in the job meant for skilled category.\n<\/p>\n
29.     We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed on behalf of
\nlearned counsel for the parties. Records made available have been thoroughly examined. We
\nhave considered with due regard the decisions of the Supreme Court so referred  to in support
\nof the issue raised herein.\n<\/p>\n
In Bhagwan Sahais case (supra), the petitioners, admittedly, being grouped under the skilled
\ngrade, were praying only for the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16,
\n1981 instead of October 15, 1984, the date on which a letter was sent to the Chief of the Army
\nStaff, New Delhi under the signatures of Deputy Secretary to Government of India, as
\nrevealed from paragraph  6 of Bhagwan Sahais case, already quoted hereinabove.
\n Petitioners claim for  granting them the skilled category of grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect
\nfrom October 16, 1981 in that case, was  based on the report of Anomalies Committee, as noted
\nin paragraph 8 of Bhagwan Sahais case (supra), wherein  it was mentioned  as follows:\n<\/p>\n
All the jobs studied by the Anomalies Committee, which are present in semi-skilled grade of
\nRs. 210-290, may be upgraded to the skilled grade on Rs. 260-400. This may be given effect
\nfrom October 16, 1981.<\/p>\n
32. The Apex Court, having considered  the said aspect, as observed in paragraph 11 in the
\nabove case, observed that it would per se  be discriminated and violative of Articles 14 and 16
\nof the Constitution of India as well as the fundamental right of equal pay for equal work, if the
\nemployees of different trades in the skilled category  were treated differently, i.e., by allowing
\nthe higher scale of pay  to the employees of the some of the trades from  an earlier date and
\ngiving the same benefit to the members of the other  trades  from a later  date. Accordingly, it
\nwas held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 from
\nOctober 16, 1981 instead of October 15, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
33. In consideration of the above fact situation in Bhagwan Sahais case, it appears that the
\nratio of case apparently is not attributable in the present case which is having slight different
\nfactual position. In the case in hand, the cardinal question is as to whether the respondents,
\nbeing under the category of semi-skilled workers, are entitled to get skilled grade in the scale of
\nRs. 260-400 with effect from October 16, 1981.\n<\/p>\n
34.     Now, coming to the Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991 before the Supreme Court, disposed of
\non July 31, 1991, which was also quoted in the order dated March 12, 1997 rendered in SWP
\nno. 1393\/1994, as already referred to above in paragraph 25 of this judgment, it is seen that the
\nquestion that arose therein was that as to whether the petitioners in the said writ petition, being
\nfrom semi-skilled category could be upgraded to the skilled category with grade of Rs. 260-400
\nwith effect from October 16, 1981.  Having considered Chapter VIII of the Anomalies
\nCommittees Report to the effect that the existing  incumbents in the semi-skilled category,
\nwho were in position as on 16th October, 1981 in the grade of Rs. 210-290, may be upgraded to
\nthe skilled category of Rs. 260-400, commensurate with the point-score given by the
\nCommittee,  it was held that the employees situated thus, would be entitled to for upgradation
\nand, accordingly, the official respondents were directed to verify the service records of these
\nemployees and grant the benefit to those who were in position on 16th October, 1981 in the
\ngrade of Rs. 210-290 by upgrading them to the skilled category of Rs. 260-400 with effect
\nfrom that date on the ratio of Bhagwan Sahais case (supra), with a further  direction that who
\nwere not in position as on October 16, 1981 in the semi-skilled grade of Rs 210-290 would be
\nentitled to placement in the skilled category of Rs. 260-400, if they  could  satisfy the
\nrequirement of Clauses a, b and c of Clause IV of Chapter X of the Anomalies
\nCommittees Report to the extent of any acceptance with or without  modification by the
\nGovernment of India.\n<\/p>\n
35.     Having regard to the above decision, it can be said that keeping in view the fact
\nsituation projected  and the provisions of law laid down therein, this authority would support
\nthe case at hand. According to the above decision, the employees, who are in position as on
\nOctober 16, 1981 in the semi-skilled grade of Rs. 210-290 will be entitled to placement in the
\nskilled category of Rs. 260-400 and employees, who are not in position  on October 16, 1981 in
\nthe semi-skilled grade of Rs. 210-290, they will be entitled to placement  in the skilled category
\nof Rs. 260-400, if they satisfy the requirement of Clauses a, b & c  of Clause IV of Chapter
\nX of the Anomalies Committees Report. In order to give such benefit, the authority has to
\nverify the service records of the employees.\n<\/p>\n
36.     Significantly, when this Court has pointedly enquired from the learned counsel
\nappearing for the Union of India about the said Clauses a, b and c of the Anomalies
\nCommittees Report and the position of the respondents  on October 16, 1981, he  has
\nexpressed his inability and helplessness to  furnish any information in this regard. It is
\nsubmitted that despite best efforts, his office is yet to get the said report and other relevant
\ndocuments containing those clauses, as mentioned in the aforesaid judgement, including any
\nsuch related informations.\n<\/p>\n
37.     That being  the position, this Court is detained from laying its hands on those relevant
\ninformations prescribed in Clauses a, b and c of Clause (IV) of Chapter X of Anomalies
\nCommittees Report.\n<\/p>\n
38.     Nonetheless, having scrutinized the facts and circumstances of the case in its totality,
\nwe have no hesitation to hold that the ratio of decision in Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991 disposed
\nof on July 31, 1991, can be applied to in the instant case to grant the relief to the respondents
\nfor their placement in the skilled grade category of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16,
\n1981.\n<\/p>\n
39.     At this stage, Mr. Sharma, has emphatically submitted that the Government of India has
\nalready accorded sanction for implementation of the judgment in LPA no. IA-I\/1997 in respect
\nof 35 petitioners (Amar Nath and others in Writ Petition no. 1393\/1994) and they have currently
\nbeen enjoying the said grade. In support of his submissions, he has placed on record,  by way of
\nan affidavit dated 19.8.2010, a communication dated 9.7.1998 sent to him  under the
\nSignatures of Administrative Officer, Headquarters 138 Works Engineers C\/o 56 APO.\n<\/p>\n
40.     Communication dated 9.7.1998 addressed to Mr. Sharma is reproduced herein below:
\nShri Rakesh Sharma Advocate,
\nLawyers Chambers
\nMubarik Mandi, Jammu.\n<\/p>\n
IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENT IN CP NO. COA(SW) 178\/97 IN SWP 1393\/94
\nFILED BY SHRI AMAR NATH VALVEMAN AND OTHER V\/S UOI.\n<\/p>\n
D\/Sir,<\/p>\n
It is submitted that Honble High Court has decided writ petition in favour of petitioners and
\nissued judgement on 12 Mar 97 for implementation but deptt decided to file LPA No. 1A-1\/97
\nagainst the said judgement. Subsequently, Honble High Court also decided LPA in favour of
\n35 petitioners and passed orders on 12 mar 99.\n<\/p>\n
 now, Govt. of India, Min of Def. has accorded sanction for implementation of judgment in
\nrespect of 35 petitioners only and asked to place the petitioners in skilled grade of Rs. 260-400
\nw.e.f. 16.10.\/1981. Action towards implementation of judgement has been commenced but out
\nof 35 petitioners difficulty to establish the identify in respect of following 2 petitioners has
\narisen which needs to be authenticated at your level by giving MES No. correct name with
\nparentage so that their case is also settled and legal complications are avoided.\n<\/p>\n
Sr. No. of WP & Judgements         Name of  petitioners
\n                  Dt. 12 mar 97 & 12 mar 99<\/p>\n
25._________________ Sh. Basin Dev\n<\/p>\n
27. _________________ Neelam Singh    <\/p>\n
This office shall feel obliged for early cooperation in furnishing the detailed information.\n<\/p>\n
Thanking you,
\n                               Yours Faithfully<\/p>\n
                                (Rumal Singh)
\n                                  Adm Offr.\n<\/p>\n
                                  Legal Cell<\/p>\n
    Mr. Sharma has also submitted that the cases of similar nature have been filed in different
\nHigh Courts and Tribunals across the country and the employees similarly situated with the
\nrespondents herein have been granted the same benefits by the Government by implementing
\nthose orders and judgments passed by different Courts and Tribunals. In this context, he has
\nrelied on a communication dated 28.4.2008 issued by the Director (legal) IHQ, Ministry of
\nDefence (Army) Government of India, addressed to the Chief Engineer  HQ Western
\nCommand, Chandimandir, also being placed on record by the affidavit mentioned above,
\nwherein it was informed that  by way of implementation  of Honble Tribunals (PB), New
\nDelhis order  dated 6.1.2006 in OA nos. 2304\/2004, 2305\/2004 and 2306\/2004 filed by Shri
\nDevi Dutt and others, Shri Sohan Pal and others and Shri Kanwar Bhadur and others v. Union
\nof India and others<\/a>, the E-in-C accorded sanction to the grant of pay scales of  Rs. 260-400
\nfrom October 16, 1981 to the post of Valveman.\n<\/p>\n
Communication dated 28.4.2008 is reproduced herein below:\n<\/p>\n
        The Chief Engineer
\n        HQ Western Command
\n        Chandimandir-134107  <\/p>\n
IMPLEMENTATION OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL (PB) NEW DELHI ORDER DATED 06
\nJAN 2006 IN OA NO. 2304\/2004, 2305\/2004 AND 2306\/2004 FILED BY SHRI DEVI
\nDUTT AND OTEHRS, SHRI SOHAN PAL AND OTHERS AND SHRI KANWAR
\nBAHADUR AND OTHERS V\/S UOI AND OTHERS.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sir,<\/p>\n
Under the powers delegated to him vide GOI, MOD letter no MOD\/ IC\/ 1027\/ 32\/AS(J)\/ 6864
\n\/2006 dated 1st Sep 2006 the E-in-C has accorded sanction to grant the pay scale of Rs. 260-
\n400\/950\/1500 (revised) from 16 Oct. 1981 or the date of their initial appointment \/promotion to
\nthe post of valveman whichever is later with all consequential benefits in respect of the
\nindividuals as per Appx A in compliance with Tribunal (PB) New Delhi order dated
\n06.01.2006 in OA No. 2304\/2305\/2306 of 2004. This will  be subject to outcome of SLPs
\nalready filed by UOI in case of Shri Gepa Ram and others and Shri Amar Nath and others.
\nThe financial implication may be worked out and got verified by the audit authorities and the
\ndetails thereof furnished to this HQ for floating a separate sanction and noting the charged
\nexpenditure by MOD\/Fin (Budget) before payment.\n<\/p>\n
This issues with the concurrence of IFA (Army) vide their U.O. No. 01\/FA\/ARMY-Q\/E-IN-
\nC\/COURT JUDGMENT\/51\/748 Dated 24 Apr 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                        Yours faithfully,<\/p>\n
(SC Sinha)
\n                                             SE
\n                                     Director (Legal)
\n                                   IHQ, Min of Def(Army)
\n                                  Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
Copy to :\n<\/p>\n
MOD\/D(Works)
\nCGDA, West Block-V, RK Puram, New Delhi
\nPCDA Western Command Chandimandir
\nAGH ORG-45(Civ)(d)
\nIFA Army. <\/p>\n
Since the Government itself has accorded sanction for implementation of judgments and
\ndirections of the various Courts and Tribunals including this Court, as reflected in the above
\ncommunications, there shall be no impediment in upgradation of the respondents grade  to
\nskilled category in the scale of Rs. 260-400, as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
In consideration of the above and  having  taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case
\nin its entirety, we are of the view that the respondents, who are undisputedly also performing
\ntheir duties as are assigned to the skilled workers, are entitled  to skilled  grade of Rs. 260-400
\nwith effect from October 16, 1981, in the light of the principle of equal pay for equal work,
\nwhich itself is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the above discussion and observations, these appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
         (Mohammad Yaqoob Mir)              (Dr. Aftab H. Saikia)                               \nJudge                                       Chief Justice\nJammu:  \n19.08.2010 \nTilak, Secy.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The … on 19 August, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. LPASW no. 27 of 2006 AND LPASW no. 347 of 2000 AND LPASW no. 348 of 2000 Union of India and ors. Petitioners 1)Amar Nath and […]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-236174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The ... on 19 August, 2010 - 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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The ... on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-02T19:43:18+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The … on 19 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T19:43:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4882,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The ... on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T19:43:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The … on 19 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The ... on 19 August, 2010 - 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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The ... on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-02T19:43:18+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The … on 19 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T19:43:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010"},"wordCount":4882,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010","name":"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The ... on 19 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T19:43:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-the-above-order-was-passed-by-the-on-19-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The … on 19 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/236174","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=236174"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236174\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}