{"id":249763,"date":"2010-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-20T13:26:55","modified_gmt":"2017-12-20T07:56:55","slug":"union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                             1\n\n                 W.A. No.1182 of 2009\n17.2.2010\n      Ms.    Kanak    Gaharwar,      learned    counsel     the\nappellant.\n      There is delay in filing this appeal. For the\nreasons stated in the application - I.A. No.12729\/09\nsupported by an affidavit, the delay in filing this appeal\nis hereby condoned.\n      Heard.\n      It is conceded at bar that the matter is covered\nby the decision of this Court rendered in W.A.\nNo.1115\/2009,         W.A.        No.1116\/2009,            W.A.\nNo.1117\/2009, W.A.No.1118\/2009, W.A. No.1119\/2009\nand W.A. No.1120\/2009 decided as per common order\ndt.27.1.2010, wherein following order was passed :\n\n\n\"1.    All the aforesaid six intra-court appeals arise\nfrom the common order of the learned Single Judge\ndated      11.8.2009      allowing    Writ    Petition\nNo.2986\/2009(S), W.P. No.2972\/ 2009(S), W.P.\nNo.3282\/2009(S), W.P. No.2935\/2009(S), W.P.\nNo.2971\/2009(S) and W.P. No.2973\/2009(S) and\nsince facts and issues involved in these appeals are\ncommon, they have been heard together and are\nbeing disposed of by this common order.\n\n\n2.    It appears that the respondents were working in<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">the Army on different posts and in different capacities,<br \/>\nhowever they were discharged from service before<br \/>\ncompletion of their normal term of service on the<br \/>\nground that they were placed in low medical category<br \/>\nwithout obtaining opinion of the Invalidating Medical<br \/>\nBoard. It further appears that about 2300 such Army<br \/>\npersonnel placed in low medical category were<br \/>\ndischarged in similar manner. Many of them<br \/>\napproached various High Courts challenging the order<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                               2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of discharge inter alia on the ground that the<br \/>\nimpugned order of discharge having been passed<br \/>\nwithout holding Invalidating Medical Board which is a<br \/>\ncondition precedent, is illegal and arbitrary, and,<br \/>\ntherefore, cannot be sustained. The matter ultimately<br \/>\nwent to the Apex Court and their Lordships in Union<br \/>\nof India Vs. Rajpal Singh and others [(2009) 1 SCC<br \/>\n216] having considered the relevant provision held in<br \/>\npara 27 as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">&#8220;In view of the foregoing interpretation of the relevant<br \/>\nrule, we are in complete agreement with the High<br \/>\nCourt that where a JCO is sought to be discharged on<br \/>\nthe ground of medical unfitness for further service, his<br \/>\ncase has to be dealt with strictly in accordance with<br \/>\nthe procedure contemplated in Clause I (ii) in Column<br \/>\n2 of the Table appended to Rule 13. The Rule<br \/>\nprescribes a particular procedure for discharge of a<br \/>\nJCO on account of medical unfitness, which must be<br \/>\nfollowed and, therefore, any order of discharge<br \/>\npassed without subjecting him to the Invalidating<br \/>\nBoard would fall foul of the said statutory rule.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">3.     The Apex Court therefore held that a Junior<br \/>\nCommission Officer (JCO) cannot be discharged on<br \/>\nthe ground of medical unfitness unless the procedure<br \/>\nprescribed in clause I(ii) in column 2 of Table<br \/>\nappended to Rule 13 is adhered to and its non-<br \/>\ncompliance being in derogation of the Rule, the action<br \/>\nor the order in violation of requirement of rule cannot<br \/>\nbe approved. Delhi High Court following the above<br \/>\nview of the Apex Court allowed Writ Petition(C)<br \/>\nNo.5946\/2007 [Subedar (SKT) Puttan Lal and<br \/>\nothers] and other writ petitions vide judgment\/order<br \/>\ndated 20.11.2008. Delhi High Court further, in order<br \/>\nto avoid unnecessary spate of litigation, directed that<br \/>\nindividual option be sent to such Personnel Below<br \/>\nOfficer Rank (PBOR) who have not approached any<br \/>\nCourt till date within two months giving them an offer<br \/>\nto rejoin if they so desire as per directions in the writ<br \/>\npetition. It was further provided in the order that the<br \/>\noption letter will indicate that such option is to be<br \/>\nexercised within a period of 30 days of the receipt of<br \/>\nthe letter and where the retiral and pensionary<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>benefits have been paid, the amount liable to be<br \/>\nrefunded by them is to be indicated in the option letter.<br \/>\nIt was further provided that these directions are<br \/>\napplicable only to such Army personnels who have<br \/>\nbeen discharged or proposed to be discharged under<br \/>\nthe policy letter dated 12.4.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">4.      The Delhi High Court further quashed the<br \/>\nIntegrated            Army             HQ           letter<br \/>\nNo.B\/10201\/06-08\/Vol.I\/MP-3           (PBOR)       dated<br \/>\n12.4.2007 and letter of even number dated 27.6.2007.<br \/>\nConsequently, under the Integrated HQ MOD Army<br \/>\nletter No. B\/10201\/06-08\/Vol.II\/MP3 (PBOR) dated<br \/>\n2.12.2008, individual &#8216;Option letter&#8217; were directed to<br \/>\nbe issued to such discharged Army personnels to<br \/>\nrejoin the concerned Record Office at the earliest but<br \/>\nnot later than 20.1.2009. In the present case, option<br \/>\nletters were given to the respondents directing them to<br \/>\nrejoin service     with the deposition receipt of all<br \/>\nterminal benefits and bank drafts as required vide<br \/>\npara 2 of the option letter within 30 days from the date<br \/>\nof receipt of the same. The said option letter is on<br \/>\nrecord as Annexure P\/3 alongwith the writ petitions.<br \/>\nPursuant to the offer to rejoin service, the respondents<br \/>\ndeposited the amount received by them towards<br \/>\nterminal benefits as required under Clause (2) of the<br \/>\noption letter, yet they were not allowed to join on the<br \/>\nground of delay in depositing the amount received on<br \/>\naccount of terminal benefits. The details of joining of<br \/>\nthe respondents and the amounts deposited by them<br \/>\nare as under:<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">\n\n W.A.      Option    Received   Joining   Amount      Delay in\n No.       letter    on         date      deposited   depositin\n           issued                         on          g     the\n                                                      amount.\n 1115\/09   10.1.09   21.1.09    28.2.09   26.2.09 &amp;   07 days\n                                          4.3.09\n 1116\/09   13.1.09   22.1.09    08.2.09   23.2.09     02 days\n 1117\/09   13.1.09   20.1.09    19.2.09   27.2.09     08 days\n 1118\/09   17.1.09   28.1.09    23.2.09   24.2.09     Nil\n 1119\/09   8.1.09    14.1.09    26.2.09   4.3.09      19 days\n 1120\/09   14.1.09   19.1.09    20.2.09   20.2.09     02 days\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_4\">It is evident from the aforesaid chart that there is delay<br \/>\nof hardly few days in depositing the amount and only<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>for that reason the respondents have not been<br \/>\npermitted to join their service. Aggrieved by the<br \/>\naforesaid action, the respondents preferred the writ<br \/>\npetitions which have been allowed by the order<br \/>\nimpugned in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">5.     In our view, on account of delay of few days<br \/>\nwhich has been explained satisfactorily, the rightful<br \/>\nclaim of the respondents cannot be denied. The<br \/>\nrespondents have given explanation that few days<br \/>\ntime has been consumed in arranging the amount<br \/>\ndrawn by them against retiral benefits which in turn<br \/>\nresulted in delay in joining.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">6.     Shri Brian Da&#8217; Silva, learned Senior Advocate,<br \/>\nvehemently contended that the writ petitions were not<br \/>\nmaintainable before the learned single Judge as the<br \/>\nrespondents were virtually seeking extension of time<br \/>\nfixed by the Delhi High Court in its order dated<br \/>\n20.11.2008 permitting the Army personnels to submit<br \/>\ntheir rejoining within one month and, thus, this Court<br \/>\nhas no jurisdiction to modify or extend the same.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">7.      We are not impressed with the submission for<br \/>\nthe reason that undisputedly the respondents did not<br \/>\napproach the Delhi High Court earlier against the<br \/>\norder of their discharge from service on the ground of<br \/>\nlow medical category person and only when the Apex<br \/>\nCourt held in Rajpal Singh (supra) that on the ground<br \/>\nof low medical category an Army personnel cannot be<br \/>\ndischarged without taking opinion of an Invalidating<br \/>\nBoard which is a condition precedent; the Delhi High<br \/>\nCourt issued a general directions in Subedar (SKT)<br \/>\nPuttan Lal and others (supra) pursuant to which the<br \/>\nappellant vide letter dated 10.1.2009 asked the<br \/>\nrespondents to join within 30 days. However, when<br \/>\ntheir joining was not accepted on account of delay of<br \/>\nfew days, they filed the writ petitions before this Court.<br \/>\nIn our view, this being the fresh cause of action which<br \/>\narose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the<br \/>\nwrit petitions were maintainable and thus rightly<br \/>\nentertained by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                               5<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">8.      The Delhi High Court in view of the exposition<br \/>\nof law by the Apex Court, applied the same principles<br \/>\nin respect of the Personnel Below Officer Rank<br \/>\n(PBOR) and further to reduce the burden of litigation<br \/>\non Courts, issued a general direction in respect of all<br \/>\nPersonnel Below Officer Rank who have not<br \/>\napproached any Court for extending the benefits of<br \/>\nthe judgment which was upheld by the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">9.      The respondents have not challenged or sought<br \/>\nany modification in the judgment of the Delhi High<br \/>\nCourt and are aggrieved only on account of refusal by<br \/>\nthe appellant to accept their joining pursuant to their<br \/>\noption exercised in response to the appellant&#8217;s offer<br \/>\nand therefore it was a fresh cause of action for them<br \/>\nsince they have been denied the benefit of the<br \/>\njudgment which was rendered in the light of the laws<br \/>\nlaid down by the Apex Court merely on the ground of<br \/>\ndelay of few days and; thus, we do not find any reason<br \/>\nto differ with the view taken by the learned single<br \/>\nJudge. That apart, it is a well settled legal proposition<br \/>\nof law that a beneficial statute is to be construed<br \/>\nliberally so that maximum people who are covered by<br \/>\nthe same get its benefit. In the case in hand, it is not<br \/>\nin dispute that the respondents were discharged from<br \/>\nservice without holding the Invalidating Medical Board<br \/>\non the strength of the letters of the Chief of Army<br \/>\nHeadquarter dated 12.4.2007 and 27.6.2007 which<br \/>\nwere subsequently quashed by the Delhi High Court<br \/>\nand was upheld by the Apex Court, thus, the same<br \/>\nbeing contrary to law laid down by the apex Court in<br \/>\nthe case of Rajpal Singh (supra), appellants<br \/>\nthemselves called upon the respondents to rejoin the<br \/>\nservice. However, there was delay on their part in<br \/>\nsubmitting the joining for which they have submitted<br \/>\nexplanation, which are plausible and thus there was<br \/>\nno reason to reject the same.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">10.   No other point is urged on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">11.  The learned Single Judge rightly observed that<br \/>\ncombined reading of the conditions given in paras 5<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_4\">                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>        and 7 of the order of the Delhi High Court do not<br \/>\n        support the stand of the appellants that joining within<br \/>\n        30 days was imperative and failure would entail the<br \/>\n        discharge and that would amount to denial of<br \/>\n        substantive relief to the respondents whose right to<br \/>\n        reinstatement got crystalised when the two orders of<br \/>\n        the Staff Army Headquarter dated 12.4.2007 and<br \/>\n        27.6.2007 were quashed. The order of discharge<br \/>\n        once held to be illegal and set aside, the discharged<br \/>\n        employee cannot be denied their rightful claim merely<br \/>\n        on the ground of delay of few days which have been<br \/>\n        explained.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">        12.   We, therefore, do not find any merit in these<br \/>\n        appeals.   The same are accordingly dismissed.<br \/>\n        However, there shall be no order as to costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">        This appeal being similar is also dismissed in terms of<br \/>\n        the above quoted order. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_2\">              (Arun Mishra)                 (S.C. Sinho)\n                    Judge.                       Judge.\n\n\n\n\nKhan*\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010 1 W.A. No.1182 of 2009 17.2.2010 Ms. Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel the appellant. There is delay in filing this appeal. For the reasons stated in the application &#8211; I.A. No.12729\/09 supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing this appeal is [&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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-20T07:56:55+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-20T07:56:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1500,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-20T07:56:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-20T07:56:55+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-20T07:56:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010"},"wordCount":1500,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010","name":"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-20T07:56:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-devendra-singh-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Devendra Singh on 17 February, 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\/249763","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=249763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}