{"id":251934,"date":"2007-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007"},"modified":"2018-07-10T11:55:39","modified_gmt":"2018-07-10T06:25:39","slug":"c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                     Dated :- 20.02.2007\n                              \n                           Coram:-\n                              \n            The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM\n                             and\n        The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\n                              \n\n                 Writ Appeal No.2188 of 2002\n\n\nC.Japamani                          ... Appellant\n\n\t\t\tvs.\n\n\n1. The Government of India,\nRepresented by its Secretary,\nMinistry of Personnel,\nPublic Grievances and Pensions,\nDepartment of Pensions and\nPensioners Welfare, 6th Floor,\nNirvachan Sadan, New Delhi.\n\n2. The Commandant,\nC.I.S.F, FSTPP, Farakka,\nNabarun Post,\nMurshidabad District,\nWest Bengal.\n\n3. The Accounts Officer,\nRegional Pay and Accounts Officer,\nC.I.S.F. Ministry of Home Affairs,\nI.B.B.D. Bagh, (East),\nOld Currency Building,\nCalcutta 700001.\n\n4. The Director General,\nC.I.S.F. Head Quarters,\nBlock No.13, E.G.O. Complex,\nLodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.\n\n5. The Senior Accounts\nOfficer (Administration),\nPrincipal Accounts Office,\nMinistry of Home Affairs,\nNorth Block, New Delhi-110 001.       ... Respondents\n\n\n\nAppeal against the Order of the learned single Judge, dated\n25.02.2002, passed in W.P. No.11762 of 1999.\n\n\n       For Appellant  :  Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar,\n                         for Mr.A.Thirumoorthy.\n\n       For Respondents:  Mr.P.Wilson, Assistant\n                         Solicitor General.\n\n\n\t\t\tJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
  (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)\n<\/p>\n
                          – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
\n        The  above Writ Appeal is directed against the order<\/p>\n
of  the  learned single Judge, dated 25.02.2002,  passed  in<\/p>\n
W.P.  No.11762  of 1999, in and by which, the learned  Judge<\/p>\n
dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner  as<\/p>\n
not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        2.  For  convenience, we shall refer the parties  as<\/p>\n
arrayed before the learned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        3.  According  to  the  petitioner,  he  is  an  ex-<\/p>\n
serviceman.   He  joined  the  Indian  Army  and  worked  as<\/p>\n
Subedar.  After 19 + years of service, he retired from  Army<\/p>\n
Service in the year 1976.  Thereafter, he joined the Central<\/p>\n
Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 08.07.1978 as  Assistant<\/p>\n
Sub-Inspector and, after putting in 7 years of  service,  he<\/p>\n
was  promoted as Sub-Inspector.  In 1990, he was boarded out<\/p>\n
of  service on account of his disablement and the disability<\/p>\n
was  certified  as 80%.  Accordingly, he was  relieved  from<\/p>\n
duty on 16.01.1990.  Eleven months after his retirement, the<\/p>\n
Accounts Officer, Regional Pay and Accounts Office, released<\/p>\n
invalid  pension  though  he  was  eligible  for  disability<\/p>\n
pension  as  per  relevant Rules.  The respondents  did  not<\/p>\n
release  the  disability  pension;  therefore,  he  made   a<\/p>\n
representation on 07.12.1990.  The Deputy Commandant,  CISF,<\/p>\n
by  letter  dated  14.07.1992, sent  to  the  Chief  Medical<\/p>\n
Officer of Health, Malda, a copy of which had been marked to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, called for the opinion of the Medical Board.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, by letter dated 17.11.1993, the Commandant, CISF<\/p>\n
Unit,  Farakka,  advised the petitioner  to  report  to  the<\/p>\n
District  Hospital, Malda, for a detailed Medical check  up.<\/p>\n
By letter dated 21.12.1993, the petitioner requested the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent \/ Commandant to permit him to have medical  check<\/p>\n
up  at  a place nearer to his town.  The Director General  \/<\/p>\n
R4,  by letter dated 16.09.1994, instructed the D.I.G, CISF,<\/p>\n
to  make  arrangements  by deputing  staff  to  contact  the<\/p>\n
medical   authority  at  petitioner’s   native   place   for<\/p>\n
conducting a second medical examination and accordingly, the<\/p>\n
same  was  conducted on 24.10.1994. The Board  assessed  the<\/p>\n
disability  as  80%.  The Commandant enclosed  the  original<\/p>\n
Medical  Board Proceedings dated 24.10.1994 along  with  his<\/p>\n
letter  dated  24.11.1994 addressed by him to the   Accounts<\/p>\n
Officer.   By   letter  dated  24.12.1994,  the   Commandant<\/p>\n
recommended   for  disability  pension  and  requested   the<\/p>\n
Accounts   Officer   for   early   action.    However,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s  case  was  rejected by the  Accounts  Officer,<\/p>\n
which  necessitated  him to file W.P. No.2122  of  1996  for<\/p>\n
directing  the respondents to grant disability pension  from<\/p>\n
16.01.1990.  By  Order  dated  10.07.1997,  the  said   Writ<\/p>\n
Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents<\/p>\n
to   pass  orders  within  three  months.   Thereafter,  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  received  a  letter dated  14.11.1997  from  the<\/p>\n
Commandant,  CISF  Unit, FSTPP, Farakka,  stating  that  the<\/p>\n
disability  pension is not admissible to  him.   Questioning<\/p>\n
the said Order, he filed W.P. No.11762 of 1999.<\/p>\n
        4.  On  behalf  of the respondents, the  Commandant,<\/p>\n
CISF  Unit, Farakka, West Bengal –  2nd respondent  filed  a<\/p>\n
counter  affidavit disputing various averments made  in  the<\/p>\n
affidavit  filed  in support of the Writ  Petition.   It  is<\/p>\n
mainly  stated that, as per the Government of India, Finance<\/p>\n
Office  Memorandum No.F.19(2) CV (A) 104, dated  03.06.1965,<\/p>\n
appeal against the first Medical Board’s report must be made<\/p>\n
within one month from the date on which the findings of  the<\/p>\n
Board  were  made  known  to  the  Government  Servant.  The<\/p>\n
petitioner  had  made his objection against invalid  pension<\/p>\n
after  lapse of almost one year from the date of  report  of<\/p>\n
the first Medical Board.  Further, the 2nd Medical Board did<\/p>\n
not  certify  to  the  effect that it had  been  given  full<\/p>\n
knowledge of the fact that the person concerned had  already<\/p>\n
been examined by a Medical Board who had given their opinion<\/p>\n
as to the disease in respect of which the Government Servant<\/p>\n
was  incapacitated.   It  is further  stated  that  the  2nd<\/p>\n
Medical  Board at the native place of the petitioner,  after<\/p>\n
almost five years, suo motu cannot state that the petitioner<\/p>\n
was  affected by disease during the tenure of  his  service.<\/p>\n
It must be specifically mentioned in the medical report that<\/p>\n
the  nature  of government service was responsible  for  the<\/p>\n
disease.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        5.  With  the  above pleadings,  the  learned  Judge<\/p>\n
considered the claim of both sides.  After noting  that  the<\/p>\n
claim  of the petitioner was considered and rejected in  the<\/p>\n
earlier  Writ Petition viz., W.P. No.2122 of 1996, and  that<\/p>\n
he  cannot seek for a similar direction in the present  writ<\/p>\n
petition, the learned Judge dismissed W.P. No.11762 of 1999.<\/p>\n
Questioning  the said order, the petitioner  has  filed  the<\/p>\n
present Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        6.  Heard learned counsel for the appellant as  well<\/p>\n
as  learned  Assistant Solicitor General appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\n
         7.  The only point for consideration in this appeal<\/p>\n
is  as  to  whether the petitioner has made out a  case  for<\/p>\n
grant  of disability pension and the learned Judge is  right<\/p>\n
in dismissing the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        8.  First  of all, let us clarify the reasoning  and<\/p>\n
ultimate  conclusion  of the learned  Judge  for  dismissing<\/p>\n
W.P. No.11762 of 1999.  The relevant paragraph, namely, para<\/p>\n
No.9  of  the  order of the learned Judge,  shows  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  had earlier filed W.P. No.2122 of 1996  claiming<\/p>\n
disability  pension  and the same was rejected,  hence,  2nd<\/p>\n
writ  petition for the same relief cannot be sustained.   We<\/p>\n
are  unable to accept the said conclusion for the  following<\/p>\n
reasons.   In WP No.2122 of 1996, the petitioner prayed  for<\/p>\n
the   issuance   of  a  writ  of  mandamus,  directing   the<\/p>\n
respondents  to  grant  disability  pension  to   him   from<\/p>\n
16.01.1990 on which date he was discharged from his  job  as<\/p>\n
Sub  Inspector,  CISF, with all arrears of  pension.   After<\/p>\n
hearing the counsel for petitioner as well as the Additional<\/p>\n
Central   Government   Standing   Counsel,   one    of    us<\/p>\n
(P.Sathasivam, J.), after finding that there is no  need  to<\/p>\n
go  into  the  merits and the claim made by the  petitioner,<\/p>\n
disposed  of  WP  No.2122  of  1996  by  directing  the  3rd<\/p>\n
respondent  –  Accounts  Officer,  CISF,  Ministry  of  Home<\/p>\n
Affairs,  to  consider  the  claim  of  the  petitioner   in<\/p>\n
accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within three<\/p>\n
months  from the date of receipt of copy of that order.   In<\/p>\n
the  same  order, it was clarified that, while disposing  of<\/p>\n
the  claim  of  the  petitioner,  the  third  respondent  is<\/p>\n
expected to get all clarifications from respondents 1 and  2<\/p>\n
if  need arises.  Thus, it is clear that, while disposing of<\/p>\n
W.P.2122  of 1996, the court had no occasion to go into  the<\/p>\n
merits and it merely directed the 3rd respondent therein  to<\/p>\n
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
        9.  Coming  to  the  merits  of  the  claim  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  that  he  was invalidated that  too  during  the<\/p>\n
course of service and eligible for disability pension, heavy<\/p>\n
reliance was placed on the opinion of the 2nd Medical Board.<\/p>\n
Learned  Assistant Solicitor General, by taking  us  through<\/p>\n
various  averments in the counter affidavit, contended  that<\/p>\n
the 2nd Medical Board was not constituted in accordance with<\/p>\n
Rules\/Procedure. He also contended that there is no specific<\/p>\n
opinion\/conclusion  to the effect that  the  disability  was<\/p>\n
caused due to his service with the respondents  (CISF).   In<\/p>\n
view  of  the  above contentions, we verified  the  relevant<\/p>\n
documents, the stand taken by the respondents in the earlier<\/p>\n
writ  petition  as  well as the information  available  from<\/p>\n
various communications.  It is seen from the letter  of  the<\/p>\n
Commandant,  CISF,  dated  08.06.1993,  that  for  want   of<\/p>\n
definite  opinion in the first medical report his claim  for<\/p>\n
disability  pension  was  not recommended.   Though  it  was<\/p>\n
argued that the 2nd Medical Board was not in accordance with<\/p>\n
procedure\/instruction,  learned counsel  appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner has brought to our notice the specific  averments<\/p>\n
made  in the counter affidavit of the commandant\/CISF  Unit,<\/p>\n
F.S.T.P.P.,  Farakka,  dated  24.06.1997,  filed   in   W.P.<\/p>\n
No.2122  of  1996.  In the counter affidavit, in para  No.5,<\/p>\n
the deponent has specifically stated thus,<\/p>\n
             “…  However, on humanitarian ground<\/p>\n
          to   provide  him  the  extra   monetary<\/p>\n
          benefits,   a  2nd  Medical  Board   was<\/p>\n
          arranged at his native place. ..”\n<\/p>\n
\n
It  is  also  relevant to mention that, in the same  counter<\/p>\n
affidavit, in para No.3, the officer has mentioned about the<\/p>\n
2nd Medical Board and their opinion regarding the disease of<\/p>\n
the   petitioner.   The  following  statement  in  the  said<\/p>\n
paragraph is relevant,<\/p>\n
                  ”  …..  The 2nd Medical  Board<\/p>\n
          had,  however, on 24-10-94 endorsed  the<\/p>\n
          required certificate to the effect  that<\/p>\n
          “the disability is attributable with his<\/p>\n
          Govt.  service  and had been  aggravated<\/p>\n
          during his service tenure”. ”\n<\/p>\n
The above information makes it clear that, first of all, the<\/p>\n
Medical  Board  was  constituted  at  the  instance  of  the<\/p>\n
Department  and a specific opinion was given  by  the  Board<\/p>\n
that   the   disability  suffered  by  the   petitioner   is<\/p>\n
attributable  to  his  service  and  that  the  disease  got<\/p>\n
aggravated  during his service tenure.  The above  assertion<\/p>\n
and  the statement of the Officer cannot be ignored lightly.<\/p>\n
It  is  also relevant to mention the detail given in  letter<\/p>\n
No.V-15014\/CHPT\/LC\/119\/2002\/739  of  the  commandant,  CISF,<\/p>\n
Chennai, dated 23.01.2003, which shows that the 2nd  medical<\/p>\n
report  confirms that the candidate (writ petitioner)  comes<\/p>\n
under   the  claimed  category.   All  the  above  mentioned<\/p>\n
particulars  particularly the opinion  of  the  2nd  Medical<\/p>\n
Board  clearly  show that the disability is attributable  to<\/p>\n
his  Government service and that the disease got  aggravated<\/p>\n
during his service tenure.  These relevant aspects have  not<\/p>\n
been taken note of by the respondents as well as the learned<\/p>\n
single  Judge.  It is also relevant to point out that though<\/p>\n
the learned Assistant Solicitor General has pointed out that<\/p>\n
the  procedure  applicable for constitution of  2nd  Medical<\/p>\n
Board  has  not been followed; as mentioned in  the  earlier<\/p>\n
paragraphs,  the said Medical Board was not  constituted  at<\/p>\n
the instance of the writ petitioner.  In those circumstances<\/p>\n
and  in  the absence of  specific provisions, we are of  the<\/p>\n
view  that  the  report of the 2nd Medical Board  cannot  be<\/p>\n
rejected on the ground that certain conditions have not been<\/p>\n
fulfilled\/satisfied.   Accordingly,  we  reject   the   said<\/p>\n
contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General.<\/p>\n
         In  the  light  of  our  discussion,  the  impugned<\/p>\n
proceedings   of  the  respondents  are  quashed   and   the<\/p>\n
respondents are directed to grant disability pension to  the<\/p>\n
writ  petitioner  from  16.1.1990  on  which  date  he   was<\/p>\n
discharged from his service as Sub Inspector, CISF, with all<\/p>\n
arrears  of  pension.  The arrears shall be  paid  within  a<\/p>\n
period  of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of  this<\/p>\n
order. Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
JI.\n<\/p>\n
\nTo<\/p>\n
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
\nand Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare,
\n6th Floor, Nirvachan Sadan, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Commandant, C.I.S.F, FSTPP, Farakka, Nabarun Post,
\nMurshidabad District, West Bengal.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Accounts Officer, Regional Pay and Accounts Officer,
\nC.I.S.F. Ministry of Home Affairs, I.B.B.D. Bagh, (East),
\nOld Currency Building, Calcutta 700001.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Director General, C.I.S.F. Head Quarters,
\nBlock No.13, E.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.<\/p>\n
5. The Senior Accounts Officer (Administration), Principal
\nAccounts Office, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
\nNew Delhi-110 001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :- 20.02.2007 Coram:- The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Appeal No.2188 of 2002 C.Japamani … Appellant vs. 1. The Government of India, Represented by its Secretary, […]<\/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-251934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007 - 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\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-10T06:25:39+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-10T06:25:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1817,\"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\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007\",\"name\":\"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-10T06:25:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007 - 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\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-10T06:25:39+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-10T06:25:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007"},"wordCount":1817,"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\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007","name":"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-10T06:25:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-japamani-vs-the-government-of-india-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Japamani vs The Government Of India on 20 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/251934","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=251934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}