{"id":239444,"date":"2006-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-11-09T16:47:14","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T11:17:14","slug":"p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 26\/07\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.19944 of 2006\n and\n M.P.No.1 \n\nP. Victor Joseph Raj                 ...Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Accountant General \n    Teynampet,\n    Chennai.\n\n2.  The District Treasury Officer,\n    Trichy.\n\n3.  The State of Tamil Nadu,\n    rep.by the Secretary\n    to Government,\n    Finance (Pension) Department,\n    Secretariat,\n    Chennai 600 009.                  ...Respondents\n\n(R 3 impleaded as per the order dated 12.7.2006\n in M.P.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.19944 of 2006)\n\n        This writ petition is filed  under  Article  226  of  Constitution  of\nIndia,  praying  this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call\nfor the records on the file of the third respondent  in  connection  with  the\norder  passed  by  him  in  G.O.Ms.No.191  Finance  (Pension) Department dated \n16.3.1996 and quash the same and consequently direct the  respondents  to  pay\nthe  dearness  allowance in petitioner's family pension and further direct the\nrespondents to pay the recovered amount from petitioner's family pension.\n\n(Prayer amended as per order of the Court dated 12.7.2006 in M.P.3 of 2006  in\nW.P.No.19944 of 2006)  \n\n!For Petitioner          :  Mr.K.Sanjay\n\n^For 1st Respondent      :  Mr.V.Vijayashankar\n For Respondents 2 and 3 :  Mr.A.Arumugam   \n                            AGP\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to  quash  the  G.O.Ms.No.191,<br \/>\nFinance  (Pension)  Department,  dated  16.3.1996  and consequently direct the<br \/>\nrespondents to pay the dearness allowance on petitioner&#8217;s family  pension  and<br \/>\nfurther direct to pay the recovered amount from petitioner&#8217;s family pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The  brief  facts  necessary for disposal of the writ petition<br \/>\nare as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i)     Petitioner is working in  the  Southern  Railways  and  he  is<br \/>\nreceiving salary  from  the  Central  Government.    His  wife was employed as<br \/>\nSecondary Grade Teacher in the Municipal Middle School in the year 1980.   The<br \/>\nmarriage  of  the  petitioner  took place in the year 1983 and the wife of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner expired in the year 2005, while she was in service  and  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent  granted family pension to the petitioner as per the rules from the<br \/>\ndate of death of petitioner&#8217;s wife.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii)    The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount  of  family<br \/>\npension  sanctioned  is  now  reduced  to  half  from  April,  2006 i.e., from<br \/>\nRs.6,399\/- to 3,525\/-, for which neither notice was issued to  the  petitioner<br \/>\nnor opportunity  of hearing was given.  On enquiry from the respondents it was<br \/>\nlearnt that the petitioner has been receiving dearness allowance and the  same<br \/>\nis  being  paid along with his salary and therefore for the family pension, he<br \/>\nis not entitled to get dearness allowance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iii)   The State Government issued  G.O.Ms.No.191  Finance  (Pension)<br \/>\nDepartment  dated  16.3.1996  and  stated  that the Government of India in its<br \/>\noffice memorandum dated 14.3.1995 issued instructions following  the  judgment<br \/>\nof the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3542-3 546 dated 8.12.1994<br \/>\nand  upheld  the  decision  to  withhold the dearness allowance on pension and<br \/>\nfamily pension in the  case  ex-servicemen,  who  got  reemployment  or  whose<br \/>\ndependants got  employment.  The third respondent examined the question in the<br \/>\nlight of the above Government of India decision and ordered as follows,<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The Government  have  examined  the  question  of  allowing  Dearness<br \/>\nAllowance  on  family pension to the family pensioners of State Government who<br \/>\nare employed and decided not to allow Dearness Allowance on family pension  in<br \/>\nthe case of family pensioners who are employed.  Accordingly, they direct that<br \/>\nDearness  Allowance on family pension shall be suspended if a family pensioner<br \/>\nis employed in State or Central Government or a Government  Undertaking  or  a<br \/>\nCorporation or an autonomous body or a local fund in a post on fixed pay or on<br \/>\ntime scale  of  pay  where Dearness Allowance on pay is allowed.  In all other<br \/>\ncases of employment where no Dearness Allowance is  allowed,  in  addition  to<br \/>\nremuneration.  Dearness  Allowance  on family pension shall be allowed.  These<br \/>\norders shall take effect from the date of this order.  In the  case  of  those<br \/>\nwho  were  employed  prior  to  the  date of this order, but continue to be on<br \/>\nemployment on the date of this order.  Dearness Allowance  on  family  pension<br \/>\nwhenever  not  admissible shall be suspended with effect from the date of this<br \/>\norder.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        The said Government Order is challenged in this writ petition  with  a<br \/>\nprayer   to  quash  the  same  and  consequently  direct  the  respondents  to<br \/>\ncontinuously pay dearness allowance on petitioner&#8217;s family pension and also to<br \/>\nrefund the recovered amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The  first  respondent filed counter affidavit and stated that<br \/>\nby virtue of the impugned Government  Order  only  the  petitioner  is  denied<br \/>\ndearness allowance on family pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      The  learned  counsel  appearing  for the petitioner submitted<br \/>\nthat the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1995) 2 SCC  32<br \/>\n= JT 1995 (1) SC 417 <a href=\"\/doc\/444841\/\">(Union of India &amp; Others v.  G.Vasudevan Pillay &amp; Others,<\/a><br \/>\netc.,  etc.)  dealt  with  the  case  of  re-employed exservicemen and persons<br \/>\nappointed on compassionate ground after the  death  of  the  person  for  whom<br \/>\nfamily  pension  was  sanctioned  and the Supreme Court had not dealt with the<br \/>\ncase of the family pensioner, who  was  already  employed  and  was  receiving<br \/>\nsalary.   Learned  counsel  further  submitted that in the subsequent decision<br \/>\nreported in (2000) 2 SCC 227 ( <a href=\"\/doc\/368851\/\">H.S.E.B.    and  others  v.    Asad  Kaur)  the<br \/>\nHonourable  Supreme  Court<\/a> distinguished the above judgment and held that if a<br \/>\nperson is already employed and he was sanctioned family  pension  due  to  the<br \/>\ndeath  of his\/her wife or husband, the said person is entitled to get dearness<br \/>\nallowance on family pension along  with  salary\/pension,  payable  to  him  by<br \/>\nvirtue of his appointment, prior to the death of the person concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      I  have  also  heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing for the<br \/>\nrespective respondents and considered the rival submissions of both parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The point in issue is whether the petitioner, who has  already<br \/>\nbeen  appointed  prior  to  the  death  of his wife, is entitled to get family<br \/>\npension with dearness allowance, while  receiving  his  salary  with  dearness<br \/>\nallowance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      The  impugned G.O.Ms.No.191 dated 16.3.1996 has been issued by<br \/>\nthe third respondent only on the basis  of  the  judgment  of  the  Honourable<br \/>\nSupreme Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 32 (cited supra).  Admittedly, the said<br \/>\njudgment  has  been  explained in the subsequent decision reported in (2000) 2<br \/>\nSCC 227 (cited supra), wherein in paragraphs 2 to  5  the  Honourable  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt held thus,<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;2.     The  appellants  have  placed  reliance  on a decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/1741453\/\">Union of India v.   G.Vasudevan  Pillay<\/a>  ((1995)  2  SCC  32).    The<br \/>\ndecision in  that case dealt with ex-servicemen who had been re-employed.  The<br \/>\nCourt  said  that  pensioners  who  have  got  re-employment  can  be  treated<br \/>\ndifferently  from  other pensioners; and in the case of reemployed pensioners,<br \/>\nit would be permissible in law to deny dearness relief on pension inasmuch  as<br \/>\nthe  salary  to  be paid to them on re-employment takes care of erosion in the<br \/>\nvalue of money because of rise in prices.  The Court also  observed  that  the<br \/>\ndenial  of  dearness  relief  on  family  pension  on a fresh employment being<br \/>\ngranted to the dependant\/ widow of an ex-serviceman will also be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      This decision, therefore,  deals  with  cases  where  (i)  the<br \/>\npensioner  himself gets re-employment, or (ii) the widow or a dependant of the<br \/>\npensioner such as a son, gets fresh employment on compassionate grounds.    It<br \/>\ndoes  not deal with any case where one of the recipients of the family pension<br \/>\nis also independently employed elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      The other decision which was relied upon by the appellants  is<br \/>\na  decision  of  the  Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court in the case of Haryana Civil<br \/>\nPensioners Assn.  (Regd).  v.  State of Haryana ((1995) 7 SLR  181  (P&amp;H)(DB))<br \/>\nwhere  also  the  High  Court  followed the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1741453\/\">Union of<br \/>\nIndia v.  G.  Vasudevan Pillay<\/a> ((1995) 2 SCC 32).  The High Court  dealt  with<br \/>\nRule  55-A of the Central Services (Pension) Rules and the instructions issued<br \/>\nby the Central Government as well as by the Government of Haryana under  which<br \/>\na  pensioner was not liable to dearness allowance on pension during the period<br \/>\nof his re-employment.  The Court said that  the  person  who  was  re-employed<br \/>\nafter retirement and who had got the pay of the re-employed post together with<br \/>\ndearness relief,  can  be denied the dearness relief on his pension.  The same<br \/>\nobservations were made  in  respect  of  the  employment  of  a  dependant  on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds.    This  case  also,  therefore,  has  not dealt with a<br \/>\nsituation where one of the recipients of the family pension  is  independently<br \/>\nemployed even prior to the death of the employee.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      It  is  not  the  case  of  the  appellant that the respondent<br \/>\nsecured employment on compassionate grounds as a teacher after  the  death  of<br \/>\nher husband.    In  fact,  we  fail  to  see  how  she  could have secured any<br \/>\nemployment on compassionate grounds in a totally different service.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe Honourable Supreme Court  held  that  the  dearness  allowance  on  family<br \/>\npension  cannot  be  withheld  even  if  the  widow  was in service, since the<br \/>\nemployment was not on compassionate grounds and upheld  the  judgment  of  the<br \/>\nDivision Bench  of Punjab &amp; Haryana and dismissed the civil appeal.  Thus, the<br \/>\npoint in issue raised in this writ petition has already been  decided  by  the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in the above cited decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      In this case, the petitioner was employed prior to  the  death<br \/>\nof his wife and therefore the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2000)<br \/>\n2 SCC  227  (cited  supra)  squarely  applies  to the present case.  Hence the<br \/>\nimpugned order is unsustainable as held by the Honourable Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      In the result, the impugned G.O.No.191 dated 16.3.1996 is  set<br \/>\naside insofar  as  the  G.O.  not sanctioning dearness allowance to the family<br \/>\npensioners, who are already employed prior to the death of their spouse.   The<br \/>\nrespondents   are  directed  to  restore  the  family  pension  with  dearness<br \/>\nallowance, sanctioned to the petitioner and pay the same from May, 2006  after<br \/>\nadjusting the amount of Rs.3,525\/- already paid from April, 2006.  The arrears<br \/>\nshall  be  calculated  and  paid on or before 31.8.2006 and the monthly family<br \/>\npension payable to the  petitioner  from  August,  2006  shall  be  paid  with<br \/>\ndearness allowance.    It  is  made  clear  that  the  ex-servicemen  who  got<br \/>\nre-employment or persons got appointment on compassionate ground  pursuant  to<br \/>\nthe death of their spouse are not entitled to get dearness allowance on family<br \/>\npension.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The writ petition is allowed with the above directions.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>vr<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.      The Accountant General,<br \/>\n        Teynampet, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The District Treasury Officer,<br \/>\n        Trichy.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n        Finance (Pension) Department,<br \/>\n        Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 26\/07\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.19944 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 P. Victor Joseph Raj &#8230;Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Accountant General Teynampet, Chennai. 2. The District Treasury Officer, [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006 - 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\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-09T11:17:14+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T11:17:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1542,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006\",\"name\":\"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T11:17:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006 - 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\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-09T11:17:14+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T11:17:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006"},"wordCount":1542,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006","name":"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T11:17:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-victor-joseph-raj-vs-the-accountant-general-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Victor Joseph Raj vs The Accountant General on 26 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/239444","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=239444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239444\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}