{"id":237589,"date":"2008-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2"},"modified":"2018-01-12T18:25:42","modified_gmt":"2018-01-12T12:55:42","slug":"the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 16306 of 2004(S)\n\n\n1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,\n3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,\n4. THE CHIEF OPERATING MANAGER,\n5. THE DIVISIONAL OPERATING MANAGER,\n6. THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY, S\/O.LATE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :21\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                            K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &  K.T. SANKARAN, JJ.\n\n                           ...................................................................................\n\n                                            W.P.(C) No. 16306    OF  2004\n\n                           ...................................................................................\n\n                                         Dated this the 21st February, 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           The respondents in O.A.No. 1380 of 1995 are the writ petitioners.  The applicant<\/p>\n
was a railway employee.  He was dismissed from service .  After availing the  statutory<\/p>\n
remedies under the relevant rules,   he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,<\/p>\n
challenging   the   dismissal   order.     The   said   application   was   allowed   by   Ext.   P2   order.<\/p>\n
The relevant portion of the order  reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “76.     Since   for   the   detailed   reasons   discussed   by   us   above,   the   said<\/p>\n
           conclusion reached by the Appellate authority cannot be sustained as<\/p>\n
           valid and legally tenable, the order rejecting  the appeal by him at A17<\/p>\n
           is similarly set aside by us.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           77.    We   further   direct   that   the   applicant   should   be   reinstated   with   all<\/p>\n
           benefits including back wages.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           78.  We would also like to make it clear that this order will not operate<\/p>\n
           as a bar against the respondents  holding a fresh departmental inquiry<\/p>\n
           from the  stage after issue of the memorandum of charges at Annexure<\/p>\n
           A2 dated 2\/26.5.86.” (Emphasis supplied).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2.   The respondents in the O.A. challenged the said order   before this court by<\/p>\n
filing  O.P.No. 9341 of 1999.  This Court vacated the direction to pay back wages to the<\/p>\n
employee   and   issued   certain   further   directions.     The   relevant   portion   of   the   said<\/p>\n
judgment , a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3, reads as follows:<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 16306    OF  2004\n\n\n                                                      2<\/span>\n\n\n       \"However,   it   is   submitted   by   the     counsel   for   the   petitioner   that   the\n\n       petitioner   was   subsequently     got   enrolled   as   an   advocate   and\n\n       therefore,   payment   of   entire   back   wages   will   be   harsh.     The   learned\n\n       counsel   for   the   first   respondent     submitted   that     if   first   respondent   is\n\n<\/pre>\n
       allowed   to   take   voluntary   retirement   he   will   be   willing   to   forgo   back<\/p>\n
       wages.     That   is   a   matter   to   be   discussed     and   settled   between   the<\/p>\n
       parties.  Therefore, the direction with regard to payment of back wages<\/p>\n
       is   vacated.    Whether     petitioner   is   entitled     to   back   wages     for   this<\/p>\n
       period, whether compensation can be  ordered  in lieu of reinstatement,<\/p>\n
       etc are matters to be considered  by the Tribunal.  During the pendency<\/p>\n
       of   the   proceedings   before   the   Tribunal,   the   question   regarding<\/p>\n
       acceptance of  voluntary retirement and payment of back wages can be<\/p>\n
       considered  and settled between  the parties.    Both parties  can adduce<\/p>\n
       evidence before the Tribunal.  Due to the long pendency of the dispute,<\/p>\n
       the   Tribunal   is   free   to   pass   orders   regarding   compensation     and<\/p>\n
       retirement   benefits     etc.     in   stead   of     back   wages   and   reinstatement.<\/p>\n
       Therefore,   without     interfering   with   the   finding   that     disciplinary   action<\/p>\n
       was taken  without complying with rules and natural justice, with regard<\/p>\n
       to the relief that has to be  moulded  in view of the subsequent charges,<\/p>\n
       the matter is remanded.” (Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3. In obedience to  the said direction, the Tribunal  reconsidered  the matter and<\/p>\n
passed the present impugned order,  Ext.P1 dated 11.02.2004.  The relevant portion of<\/p>\n
the impugned order reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “In   the   result,   in   the   conspectus     of   the   facts   and   circumstances,   we<\/p>\n
       dispose   of   this   application   with   the   following   declarations   and<\/p>\n
       directions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (a)    As the  order   of  removal   from  service   of  the  applicant   and<\/p>\n
       the appellate order have been set aside we declare that the applicant<\/p>\n
       should be deemed to have been reinstated  in service with effect  from<\/p>\n
       the date of removal from service  with continuity of service.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (b)   The respondents are directed   to fix   and revise the pay of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 16306    OF  2004<\/p>\n
                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
         the   applicant   according   to   the   Revised   Pay   Rules,   1997   treating   that<\/p>\n
         the applicant continued in service despite   removal from service which<\/p>\n
         has   been   set   aside   giving   him   fixation   and   fitment   on   par     with   his<\/p>\n
         immediate junior.\n<\/p>\n
         (c)   The applicant  shall be deemed   to have retired    voluntarily  under<\/p>\n
         Rule 1803 of the Indian Railway Establishment  Code Vol.II  with effect<\/p>\n
         from this date and the respondents shall compute the pension, gratuity<\/p>\n
         and   other   terminal   benefits   deeming   that   he   continued   in   service<\/p>\n
         despite the impugned orders till today and to make available to him the<\/p>\n
         monetary   benefits     flowing   therefrom   within   a   period   of   three   months<\/p>\n
         from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         4.   From the above, it is clear that the Tribunal   had only ordered    to treat  the<\/p>\n
petitioner   as   having   voluntarily   retired   from   service   from   the   date   of   order   of   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and to grant him terminal benefits.  The respondents in the O.A. have filed the<\/p>\n
present   Writ   Petition,   challenging   the   direction   to   pay   terminal   benefits   taking   into<\/p>\n
account the period the respondent\/applicant was out of service.  He joined the service in<\/p>\n
1973.  He was removed from service in the year 1988.  He was reinstated  in 1993 and<\/p>\n
again in 1994, he was removed from service.  As per the order of the Tribunal,  he is to<\/p>\n
be     treated   as   having     retired   from   service   voluntarily    w.e.f.   11.02.2004,   the   date   of<\/p>\n
order  of  the   Tribunal.    The  Writ  Petitioners     pointed out  that  the  respondent\/applicant<\/p>\n
was all along practising as a lawyer while he was out of service, so the said period that<\/p>\n
he     practised   as   a     lawyer   could   not   be   counted   for   granting   pensionary\/terminal<\/p>\n
benefits.     So   the   direction   of   the   Tribunal   to   take   into   account   the   period   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/applicant   practiced     as   a   lawyer   for   the   purpose   of   granting     terminal<\/p>\n
benefits   should   be   vacated,   it   is   submitted.         We   heard   the   learned   counsel   for<\/p>\n
respondent\/applicant  also on the above point.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 16306    OF  2004<\/p>\n
                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
         5.  A dismissed employee need not wait  outside starving  till he is reinstated.  He<\/p>\n
can engage himself   in any   business or profession.   If   he is gainfully   employed and<\/p>\n
gets   proper   income,   even   if   ultimately   his   termination   is   found   to   be   illegal   by   the<\/p>\n
competent court,  he cannot claim any back wages.  In such cases, normally,  the order<\/p>\n
of   reinstatement   would   provide   to   treat   the   entire     period   he   was   out   of   service   as<\/p>\n
service  for  all purposes, except for  back wages.   But  Railways contend that  if he is<\/p>\n
gainfully employed, the period he was out of service cannot be  counted for pension.  In<\/p>\n
service   jurisprudence,   whatever   be   the   nature   of   the     employment   of   a   dismissed   or<\/p>\n
terminated employee, the   period he was out of service will be treated    as service   for<\/p>\n
all purposes including, for    granting increment, promotion, computing terminal benefits<\/p>\n
etc., if the termination is found  to be illegal.       The  said general principle cannot have<\/p>\n
any   exception   on   the   ground   that   the   applicant   had   practiced   as   a   lawyer.     The<\/p>\n
submission made  on behalf of the petitioners,    relying  on the provisions of Advocates’<\/p>\n
Act   is   devoid   of   any   merit.     The     direction   to   count   the   service   of   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/applicant while he was not working in Railways, as service for the purpose<\/p>\n
of   terminal   benefits   does   not   suffer   from   any   illegality   or   irregularity.     This     is,   as<\/p>\n
mentioned earlier,  a usual general order given  in all cases in service\/labour jurisdiction,<\/p>\n
where the termination is found to be illegal.  In this case, we notice that the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
specifically   ordered   to   reinstate   the   respondent\/applicant   with   all   service   benefits   and<\/p>\n
back wages.  This court only interfered with the direction to grant back wages. In other<\/p>\n
words,  counting the service for granting  other service benefits to the respondent as per<\/p>\n
Ext. P2  has gained finality with the refusal of this  court in Ext. P3 judgment to interfere<\/p>\n
with that part of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.   Again this court also<\/p>\n
ordered the Central Administrative Tribunal to consider   what are the benefits that can<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 16306    OF  2004<\/p>\n
                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
be   granted   to   the   respondent.     The   various     benefits   can   be   granted   to   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/applicant  only if the  period he  practiced   the  profession  of  a  lawyer is  also<\/p>\n
reckoned.     So   it   is   implicit   in   the   direction   of   this   court   that   said   period   could   be<\/p>\n
computed for granting terminal\/pensionary  benefits.  Ext.P3 judgment of this Court  has<\/p>\n
also   become   final.     So   in   view   of   Exts.P2   and   P3,     the   present   contention   that   the<\/p>\n
period, the respondent\/applicant spent in the profession of lawyering cannot be treated<\/p>\n
or  reckoned  for   terminal  benefits  is  manifestly  untenable.       Accordingly,  we  reject   the<\/p>\n
same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                                               K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,<\/p>\n
                                                                                       JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                K.T. SANKARAN,<\/p>\n
                                                                                         JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 16306 of 2004(S) 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE … Petitioner 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, 4. THE CHIEF OPERATING MANAGER, 5. THE DIVISIONAL OPERATING MANAGER, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008 - 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\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-12T12:55:42+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-12T12:55:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1311,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2\",\"name\":\"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-12T12:55:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008 - 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\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-12T12:55:42+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-12T12:55:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2"},"wordCount":1311,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2","name":"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-12T12:55:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-sri-t-c-govindaswamy-on-21-february-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Union Of India vs Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy on 21 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/237589","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=237589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}