{"id":237706,"date":"1969-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969"},"modified":"2016-04-08T20:26:25","modified_gmt":"2016-04-08T14:56:25","slug":"general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969","title":{"rendered":"General Manager, North East &#8230; vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">General Manager, North East &#8230; vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIERRAILWAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSACHINDRA NATH SEN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/08\/1969\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\tRailway Establishment Code, Rules 148 and  149\theld\ninvalid by Supreme Court as violative of Art. 311 (2) of the\nConstitution  of  India-Railway\t Board\tdeciding  that\tonly\nemployees  whose services were terminated under\t said  Rules\nwithin\ta period of six years before Supreme Court  judgment\nwould be reinstated-Validity of limit of six years.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe,  services\tof the respondent as  an  Assistant  Traffic\nSuperintendent\ton  the\t North East  Frontier  Railway\twere\nterminated  after one month's notice under Rule 148  of\t the\nIndian Railway Establishment Code with effect from  December\n2,  1957.  An appeal to the General Manager was held not  to\nbe competent.  On being offered a lower post the  respondent\naccepted  it.\tBy  letter dated December 31,  1959  he\t was\ninformed  that his representation to the Railway  Board\t had\nbeen  rejected.\t On December 5, 1963 this Court in Moti\t Ram\nDeka's case held that Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the  Indian\nRailway\t Establishment Code were invalid being violative  of\nArt.  311(2)  of the Constitution.  The\t respondent  made  a\nrepresentation\t in   1964  to\tthe  General   Manager\t for\nreconsideration\t of  his  case\tin the\tlight  of  the\tsaid\njudgment.  The representation was turned down on the  ground\nthat  the  Railway Board had decided to instate\t only  those\nemployees  whose  services had been terminated in  terms  of\nRules 148\/149 within a period of six years prior to the date\nof  the\t Supreme Court's judgment.  The respondent  filed  a\npetition  under\t Art.  226 of  the  Constitution  which\t was\nallowed by the High Court.  The General Manager appealed.\n    HELD:  The\tfixing of a period of six years was  on\t the\nface  of it arbitrary and there was no valid  or  reasonable\nexplanation  as to why this limit was fixed by\tthe  railway\nauthorities.   If the termination of service of an  employee\nin terms of Rule 148 was wholly illegal and void because  of\nviolation   of\t Art.  311(2)  of  the\t Constitution,\t his\nreinstatement  should have followed as a matter\t of  course.\nThe contention that the railway authorities would have found\na  lot\tof  difficulty\tand  inconvenience  in\t reinstating\nemployees without taking into consideration the period which\nhad  elapsed was devoid of merit and could not be  accepted.\n[67 F--G]\n    Moti  Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager,  N.E.F.  Railway\netc. [1964] 5 S.C.R. 683, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1839 of 1967.<br \/>\n    Appeal  by\tspecial leave from the judgment\t and  decree<br \/>\ndated  February\t 16, 1967 of the Assam\tand   Nagaland\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  in Civil Rule 2 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.A. Seyid Muhammad and S.P. Nayar, for the &#8216;appellants.<br \/>\nA.K. Sen and D.N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">66<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nGrover,\t J.  This  is an appeal\t by special  leave  from   a<br \/>\njudgment  of  the Assam &amp; Nagaland High Court by   which   a<br \/>\npetition  under\t Art, 226 of the Constitution filed  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  challenging the termination of his\tservice\t was<br \/>\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>   The\t  respondent  was  serving  the\t railways   as\t  an<br \/>\nAssistant Traffic Superintendent prior to December 2,  1957.<br \/>\nHis services were terminated by serving on him one   month&#8217;s<br \/>\nnotice\tunder  Rule  148 contained in  the  Indian  Railways<br \/>\nEstablishment  Code. The respondent filed an appeal  to\t the<br \/>\nGeneral\t Manager  but he was informed by means of  a  letter<br \/>\ndated  February\t 3, 1959 that no appeal was  competent.\t  In<br \/>\nJune  1959 he  was  offered  reemployment as  a\t Statistical<br \/>\nInspector in the scale of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 plus the  usual<br \/>\nallowances  on terms and conditions applicable to  temporary<br \/>\nemployees.   It\t appears that the  respondent  accepted\t the<br \/>\noffer  and  was\t appointed  to the  post.   He\twas  finally<br \/>\ninformed  by means of a letter dated December 31, 1959\tthat<br \/>\nhis  representation  had  been considered  by  the   Railway<br \/>\nBoard  relating\t to  the  termination  of  his\tservices  as<br \/>\nAssistant  Traffic  Superintendent  but the  same  had\tbeen<br \/>\nrejected.   On\tDecember  5,  1963  this  Court\t decided  by<br \/>\nmajority in Moti  Ram  Deka  etc. v. General Manager. N.E.F.<br \/>\nRailways etc.(1) that Rules 148 (3) and 149(3) of the Indian<br \/>\nRailway\t Establishment\tCode  were invalid.  The  respondent<br \/>\nmade a representation\t     thereafter\t      in 1964 to the<br \/>\nGeneral\t  Manager   to\treconsider  the\t\t  case\t  of<br \/>\nthe  termination  of his services in the light\tof  the\t law<br \/>\ndeclared      by  this Court. The; General  Manager  sent  a<br \/>\nreply  dated  June 3, 1964 saying that the question  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondents reinstatement could not be considered as it\t was<br \/>\nnot covered &#8216;by limits of law, i.e. it does not fail  within<br \/>\na  period of six years from the date of your termination  of<br \/>\nservice&#8221;.   This  was  followed by   another   letter  dated<br \/>\nDecember 7, 1964 in which it was stated:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t     &#8220;It  has  now  been  clarified  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      Railway\t  Board\t  that\t the\tclaim\t for<br \/>\n\t      reinstatement  of\t the  Ex:  Employees   whose<br \/>\n\t      services were terminated in terms of Rule 148\/<br \/>\n\t      149  within  a period of six  years  prior  to<br \/>\n\t      5-12-63  (the  date  of  the  Supreme  Court&#8217;s<br \/>\n\t      judgment),  and whose representation is  still<br \/>\n\t      pending  is only to be considered. Since\tyour<br \/>\n\t      services\twere terminated on 2-12-57 which  is<br \/>\n\t      more  than  six\tyears\tcounting   backwards<br \/>\n\t      from  5-12-63,  it  is  regretted\t that\tyour<br \/>\n\t      request for reinstatement cannot\tbe   acceded<br \/>\n\t      to&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under Art. 226  of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution in the. High Court.  As stated before\t the<br \/>\npetition<br \/>\n(1) [1964] 5 S.C.R. 683.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">67<\/span><\/p>\n<p>was  allowed  principally  on the ground  that\tthe  railway<br \/>\nauthorities   were  not\t legally  justified  in\t  making   a<br \/>\ndistinction   between  officers\t whose\tservices  had\tbeen<br \/>\nterminated  within six years prior to the judgment of  this.<br \/>\nCourt  in  Moti Ram Deka&#8217;s(1) case and the  cases  of  those<br \/>\nwhose services had been terminated earlier.  As pointed\t out<br \/>\nin the judgment of the High Court that respondents  services<br \/>\nwere terminated on December 2, 1957, he was behind time by 3<br \/>\ndays   only.   It  was\tfound  that  such   an\t  artificial<br \/>\ndemarcation  between the two kinds of cases was hit by\tArt.<br \/>\n14 of the Constitution.\t The other point that the respondent<br \/>\nhad accepted reemployment and must be deemed to have  waived<br \/>\nhis rights to reinstatement to his original office was\talso<br \/>\nrepelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tMoti  Ram Deka&#8217;s(1) case this Court  held  that\t the<br \/>\ntermination   of  the  services.  of  a\t permanent   servant<br \/>\nauthorised  by\tRules  148(3)  and  149(3)  of\tthe  Railway<br \/>\nEstablishment  Code was inconsistent with the provisions  of<br \/>\nArt.  311  (2) of the Constitution. The termination  of\t the<br \/>\nservices  of a permanent servant authorised by\tthose  Rules<br \/>\nwas  no more and no less than removal from service and\tArt.<br \/>\n311(2) was at once attracted.  In view of the law laid\tdown<br \/>\nby  this  Court\t the  termination of  the  services  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent in December 1957 was\t wholly\t void  and  illegal.<br \/>\nThe  railway  authorities recognised, as  indeed  they\twere<br \/>\nbound to do, the implications and effect of the judgment  of<br \/>\nthis  Court  but  created a wholly  illegal  and  artificial<br \/>\ndistinction  by\t saying\t that  only  those  employees  whose<br \/>\nservices were terminated in  terms Rule 148 within a  period<br \/>\nof   six  years\t prior\tto  December  5,  1963\t and   whose<br \/>\nrepresentations\t were  pending\twere to\t be  considered\t for<br \/>\nreinstatement, whereas the employees  like  the\t  respondent<br \/>\nwhose services had been terminated on a date which was\tmore<br \/>\nthan six years counting backward from December 5, 1963 would<br \/>\nnot  be reinstated.  The fixing of the period of  six  years<br \/>\nwas on the face of it arbitrary and no valid or\t  reasonable<br \/>\nexplanation  has been given as to why this limit was  fixed.<br \/>\nIf  the\t termination of service of an employee in  terms  of<br \/>\nRule  148 was wholly illegal and void and was  violative  of<br \/>\nArt. 311 (2) of\t the  Constitution his\treinstatement should<br \/>\nhave followed as a matter of  course. The submission of\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t  counsel  for\tthe  appellant\tthat   the   railway<br \/>\nauthorities   would  have  found  lot  of   difficulty\t and<br \/>\ninconvenience  in reinstating employees without taking\tinto<br \/>\nconsideration the period which had elapsed is devoid of\t any<br \/>\nmerit and cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G.C.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n(1) [1964] 5 S.C.R. 683.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">68<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India General Manager, North East &#8230; vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969 PETITIONER: GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIERRAILWAY Vs. RESPONDENT: SACHINDRA NATH SEN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/08\/1969 BENCH: ACT: Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rules 148 and 149 held invalid by Supreme Court as violative of Art. 311 (2) of the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>General Manager, North East ... vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"General Manager, North East ... vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-08T14:56:25+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"General Manager, North East &#8230; vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T14:56:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969\"},\"wordCount\":919,\"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\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969\",\"name\":\"General Manager, North East ... vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T14:56:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"General Manager, North East &#8230; vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"General Manager, North East ... vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"General Manager, North East ... vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-08T14:56:25+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"General Manager, North East &#8230; vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969","datePublished":"1969-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T14:56:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969"},"wordCount":919,"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\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969","name":"General Manager, North East ... vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T14:56:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-manager-north-east-vs-sachindra-nath-sen-on-22-august-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"General Manager, North East &#8230; vs Sachindra Nath Sen on 22 August, 1969"}]},{"@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\/237706","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=237706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237706\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}