{"id":247197,"date":"2010-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-03T04:39:04","modified_gmt":"2017-11-02T23:09:04","slug":"unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior … on 25 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior … on 25 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, J. H. Bhatia<\/div>\n
     mgn\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI\n                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                              WRIT PETITION NO. 291 of 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n     Union of India, through the                 )\n\n     Chief Controller of Accounts,               )\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n     Principal Accounts Office,                  )\n\n     Ministry of Industry, 517-D,                )\n\n     Udyog Bhavan,                               )\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     New Delhi-110 011        ig                 )\n\n     2.The Senior Accounts Officer,              )\n\n     Pay and Accounts Office, Small Scale        )\n                            \n     Industries, Kurla-Andheri Road,             )\n\n     Sakinaka, Mumbai-400 072.                   )\n      \n\n\n     3.The Estate Manager, Third Floor,          )\n   \n\n\n\n     Old CGO Building Annexe, 101, M.K.Road)\n\n     Mumbai-400 020.                             )..PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n\n                    Versus\n\n     Sarjerao Vithal Patil                       )\n\n     Compulsorily Retired Senior Account,        )\n\n\n\n\n\n     Residing at Post Turchi, Taluka Tasgaon,    )\n\n     District Sangli.                            )..RESPONDENT\n\n     Mr. Y.S. Bhate, for the Petitioners.\n\n     Mr. Sandeep V. Marne, for the Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:32:56 :::\n                               CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO &\n                                     J.H. BHATIA, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                              DATED : 25tTH JANUARY, 2010<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT (PER FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.):\n<\/p>\n
          Rule. Heard forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The     respondent       was    in   the    employment           of      the<\/p>\n
     petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that<\/p>\n
     Respondent<\/p>\n
                     was      in     unauthorised          occupation              and<\/p>\n
     consequently would have to pay compensation                    in terms of<\/p>\n
     the various Notifications issued by the petitioners.                            An<\/p>\n
     order accordingly came to be passed.                Aggrieved by that<\/p>\n
     order the Respondent preferred O.A., O.A. No.62 of 2007<\/p>\n
     before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which by the<\/p>\n
     impugned    order     dated   31st   January,    2008          allowed        the<\/p>\n
     O.A., with the direction to the petitioners to charge<\/p>\n
     only double license fee              from the date of four months<\/p>\n
     after his retirement and till he vacates the quarters in<\/p>\n
     question.     There was a further direction to petitioners<\/p>\n
     to release the remaining pension and pensionary benefits<\/p>\n
     which they have withheld wrongly within a period of two<\/p>\n
     months with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:56 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      3.    The petitioners aggrieved by the said order have<\/p>\n
     approached this Court.                    On behalf of the petitioners<\/p>\n
     learned Counsel submits that the impugned order suffers<\/p>\n
     from an error of law apparent on the face of the record<\/p>\n
     in as much as it was not open to the Tribunal to have<\/p>\n
     interfered with the compensation                        considering that the<\/p>\n
     Respondent        was    and       continued       to    be       in   unauthorised<\/p>\n
     occupation        of     the       premises       and     considering             Office<\/p>\n
     Memorandum of 31st March, 1992                    and Office Memorandum of<\/p>\n
     30th November, 1995 and 23rd July, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
     claimed by the petitioners were in terms of the said
\n                                                                        The amounts as<\/p>\n
     office memorandums.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    On    the    other          hand    on    behalf       of    the     respondent<\/p>\n
     learned Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Wing Commander<\/p>\n
     R.R. Hingorani (Retd.)<\/a> (1987) 1 SCC 551 contends that in<\/p>\n
     so far as pension and commuted                     pension is concerned it<\/p>\n
     was   not   open        to   the    petitioners         to    withhold         or    make<\/p>\n
     deduction     in       respect       of    the    compensation               from      the<\/p>\n
     pension     amount.          To     that       extent    the       order       of      the<\/p>\n
     petitioners        or of the Estate Officer was clearly without<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction.           It is also pointed out that it cannot be<\/p>\n
     said that the order of the Tribunal based on the finding<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:56 :::<\/span>
\n      that the petitioners had not taken any steps for eviction<\/p>\n
     of the respondent and considering his failing eye sight<\/p>\n
     of the Respondent, it                cannot     be said to be illegal or<\/p>\n
     disclosing an error of law                 apparent on the face of the<\/p>\n
     record.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      To answer the question we may only refer to                                 a few<\/p>\n
     dates.        The respondent was appointed as an Upper Division<\/p>\n
     Clerk (UDC) some time on 6th May, 1996. A show cause<\/p>\n
     notice came to be issued to the respondent on 13 th May,<\/p>\n
                    came<\/p>\n
     1994 on the ground of unauthorised absence. An order for<\/p>\n
     eviction                to     be   passed      on     10th     June,       1994.       The<\/p>\n
     respondent       aggrieved          preferred        an     Appeal        before        the<\/p>\n
     Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Public<\/p>\n
     Premises Eviction Act, hereinafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
     Act.     By an order of 24th March, 1995 the impugned order<\/p>\n
     of     10th    June,    1994        was   set    aside.             The      Appellate<\/p>\n
     Authority was, however, pleased to grant liberty to the<\/p>\n
     petitioners to issue fresh notice under Section 4(2)                                      of<\/p>\n
     the Act.        A fresh order of eviction came to be passed on<\/p>\n
     31st October,          1995.        That was also subject matter of<\/p>\n
     another Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which once<\/p>\n
     again by order dated 6th March, 1996 set aside the order<\/p>\n
     with a direction to issue fresh show cause notice on the<\/p>\n
     ground of sub-letting as that was fresh ground sought to<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:56 :::<\/span>
\n      be raised by the petitioner No.1.               A charge sheet came to<\/p>\n
     be served on the respondent No.1 on 13th September, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to the charge sheet and the enquiry held it was<\/p>\n
     held    that    the    petitioner      was     guilty      of     the      charges<\/p>\n
     established, punishment by way of penalty of removal from<\/p>\n
     service was passed on the respondent by order dated 15th<\/p>\n
     October, 1997.         The respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal<\/p>\n
     against that punishment.             The Disciplinary Authority was<\/p>\n
     pleased   to    reduced      the     penalty    to    one       of    compulsory<\/p>\n
     retirement by order of 5th June, 1998.\n<\/p>\n
     6.<\/p>\n
            It is subsequent to this order that by order dated<\/p>\n
     20th October, 2003 that the petitioner No.2 held that the<\/p>\n
     respondent s allotment was deemed to be cancelled on 17th<\/p>\n
     December, 1992 and that the respondent was liable to pay<\/p>\n
     damages with effect from 4th December, 1998 at the rate<\/p>\n
     prescribed.      The respondent vacated the premises on 19th<\/p>\n
     July,   2004.         The   period    of   four    months        of    allotment<\/p>\n
     expired on 17th December, 1992               It is against this order<\/p>\n
     the O.A. was filed, pursuant to which the impugned order<\/p>\n
     came to be passed.\n<\/p>\n
     7.     The question that we have to answer is as to what is<\/p>\n
     the date from which the penal damages could have been<\/p>\n
     awarded considering that the punishment of removal from<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:56 :::<\/span>
\n      service was reduced to one of compulsory retirement                               on<\/p>\n
     5th June, 1998. In terms of the Rules an employee is<\/p>\n
     entitled    to   retain   the    premises       for     a    further          grace<\/p>\n
     period of four months.           In our opinion,therefore, once<\/p>\n
     the orders of eviction were set aside as also the order<\/p>\n
     of    compulsory    retirement        it     was       not       within         the<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction of petitioner No.2 to have demanded damages<\/p>\n
     with effect from 17th December, 1992.                       The damages at<\/p>\n
     the   highest    could    have   been      claimed      at     the      rate      as<\/p>\n
     notified with effect from 5th October, 1998 to the date<\/p>\n
     of eviction i.e. 19th July, 2004.              To that extent, in our<\/p>\n
     opinion, the learned Tribunal totally misdirected itself<\/p>\n
     in law in passing the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    Therefore, the        order to that extent is set aside<\/p>\n
     and modified whereby the respondent will have to pay<\/p>\n
     damages in terms of Government Notification dated 31swt<\/p>\n
     March, 1992 read with Government Notification dated 30th<\/p>\n
     November,    1992   and     Government      Notification            dated       23rd<\/p>\n
     July, 2002 from 5th October, 1998 to 19th Jul, 2004.                            The<\/p>\n
     petitioners are, therefore, directed to pass fresh orders<\/p>\n
     in    the   above   terms     which     will     be      binding         on     the<\/p>\n
     respondent No.1 and no challenge will be available to<\/p>\n
     respondent in respect of the said calculation                        except to<\/p>\n
     the extent of any arithmetical              error.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:56 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      9.     The next issue would be regarding the deduction from<\/p>\n
     pension.     In our opinion, considering the judgment of the<\/p>\n
     Supreme      Court   in    the   case    of      Wing       Commander          R.R.\n<\/p>\n
     Hingorani (supra) it will not be open to the petitioners<\/p>\n
     to deduct anything from the pension or from the commuted<\/p>\n
     pension.      For that purpose we may gainfully refer to the<\/p>\n
     observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court in                              the said<\/p>\n
     Judgment. Placing reliance on Section 11 of the Pensions<\/p>\n
     Act, 1871 the learned Supreme Court held that Section 11<\/p>\n
     protects      fromig attachment,        seizure<\/p>\n
     pension or money due or to become due on account of any
\n                                                            or      sequestration<\/p>\n
     such pension.        Further the Court observed that even in<\/p>\n
     respect of commuted pension it is not open considering<\/p>\n
     Section 11 for any attachment.            In other words in so far<\/p>\n
     as    pension   is   concerned    it    will     not      be    open      to     the<\/p>\n
     petitioners to make deduction from the pension benefits.\n<\/p>\n
     Our   attention is invited to the order passed on                                18th<\/p>\n
     January, 2010        whereby order has been passed directing<\/p>\n
     the payment of arrears of pension.\n<\/p>\n
     10.    We,   however,     make   it   clear        that      in     so    far      as<\/p>\n
     gratuity amounts are concerned, if any amounts are still<\/p>\n
     lying with the office of the petitioners it will be open<\/p>\n
     to the petitioners to recover the balance from whatever<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:56 :::<\/span>
\n      gratuity amount is due and payable.                If that amount is<\/p>\n
     not sufficient towards repayment of the compensation it<\/p>\n
     will be open to the petitioners            to take such steps in<\/p>\n
     law to recover the balance amount.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   Rule    to   that   extent   made      absolute.               IN      the<\/p>\n
     circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to<\/p>\n
     costs.\n<\/p>\n
     (J.H. BHATIA,J.)                          (FERDINO I. REBELLO,J.)<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:56 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior … on 25 January, 2010 Bench: F.I. Rebello, J. H. Bhatia mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 291 of 2009 Union of India, through the ) Chief Controller of Accounts, ) Principal Accounts Office, ) Ministry of […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247197","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior ... on 25 January, 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\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-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=\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-02T23:09:04+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\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior … on 25 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T23:09:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1302,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T23:09:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior … on 25 January, 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":"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior ... on 25 January, 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\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-02T23:09:04+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\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior … on 25 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T23:09:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010"},"wordCount":1302,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010","name":"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T23:09:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-compulsorily-retired-senior-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unknown vs Compulsorily Retired Senior … on 25 January, 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\/247197","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=247197"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247197\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}