{"id":251985,"date":"1988-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988"},"modified":"2019-02-08T12:22:27","modified_gmt":"2019-02-08T06:52:27","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1733, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 741<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. NARASIMHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/08\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1733\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 741\n 1988 SCC  Supl.  636\t  JT 1988 (3)\t304\n 1988 SCALE  (2)311\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1989 SC2262\t (9,10)\n RF\t    1990 SC 450\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\n     Civil Services: Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rule\n2046(h) and  (k)\/Railway  Pension  Manual,  1950  Para\t620-\nRailway Servant-Compulsory  retirement of  under  para\t620-\nValidity of.\n     Constitution of  India, Articles 73 & 309: Rule made in\nexercise of  executive power  under Art. 73-Not<\/a> inconsistent\nwith statutory\tprovision or  rule framed  under proviso  to\nArt. 309-<\/a>Held-Should be treated as supplementary to.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Sub-para (ii) of para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual\nempowers the competent authority to remove a railway servant\nfrom service  any time\tafter he  has completed\t 30 years of\nqualifying service. Clause (h) of Rule 2046 (F.R. 56) of the\nIndian Railway\tEstablishment Code  empowers the  appointing\nauthority to retire in Public interest (i) Class I and Class\nII railway  servant,  who  had\tentered\t Government  Service\nbefore the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of\nfifty years,  and (ii)\tin  any\t other\tcase  after  he\t has\nattained the  age of  55 years.\t Clause (k) of the said rule\nconfers absolute right on the appointing authority to retire\na railway  servant in Class III service, who is not governed\nby the Pension Rules, after he has completed thirty years of\nservice.\n     The respondent,  Class  III  servant,  who\t had  joined\nservice in 1950 was compulsorily retired from service by the\ncompetent  authority   in  the\t Railway  Administration  in\nexercise of powers under para 620 of the Manual on 14th May,\n1982. He  was born  on 23.9.1929  and  was  to\tcontinue  in\nservice till  he completed  58 years  of service.  The\twrit\npetition filed\tby him\tquestioning the validity of the said\norder and  also of  para 620  of the Manual was dismissed by\nthe Single Judge.\n     In appeal\tbefore the  Division Bench  it was contended\nfor him\t that (i)  Rule 2406 of the Rules having been framed\nunder the  proviso to  Article 309<\/a>  of the  Constitution and\nbeing  a   compendious\tcode   with  regard   to  compulsory\nretirement that\t provision alone  could be  invoked and\t not\npara 620  of the  Manual  which\t is  in\t the  nature  of  an\nexecutive\n742\norder, (ii)  since rule\t 2046(h) opens\twith a\tnon-obstante\nclause and  para 620  of the  Manual does not state that the\nsaid rule  shall prevail  notwithsanding any other provision\nto the\tcontrary, rule\t2046(h) of  the Rules cannot be made\nsubject to para 620 of the Manual, and (iii) there being two\nseparate provisions  with regard  to compulsory\t retirement,\nnamely clause  (h) of rule 2046 of the Rules and para 620 of\nthe Manual,  in the  absence of\t any guidance as to when and\nwhich rule  could be  invoked in  a  given  case,  both\t the\nprovisions  would  be  inapplicable  and  he  could  not  be\ncompulsorily retired.  The High\t Court held that para 620 of\nthe Railway Pension Manual was void and ineffective. It took\nthe view  that since  rule 2046(h)  of\tthe  Rules  was\t not\napplicable, as the respondent had not attained the age of 55\nyears on  the date he was compulsorily retired, he could not\nhave been compulsorily retired.\n     Allowing the  appeal by special leave and remanding the\ncase to the High Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.1\tPara 620  of the  Railway Pension  Manual is\nvalid. The  High Court\twas not\t right in taking the view it\ndid. [749A]\n     1.2 There\tis no inconsistency between rule 2046 of the\nRules and para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual. Clause (h)\nof rule\t 2046 of  the Rules empowers the competent authority\nto retire  compulsorily a  railway servant  on his attaining\nthe age\t specified therein.  That clause has no reference to\nthe length of service put in by a railway servant concerned.\nClause (k)  of the  said rule  under  which  the  appointing\nauthority can retire a person in the public interest after a\nrailway servant has completed 30 years of service applies to\na railway  servant holding  a Class  III post and who is not\ngoverned by pension rules. Para 620 of the Manual applies to\nall railway  servants governed by the pension rules. Railway\nservants holding  Class I  or Class  II posts  who cannot be\nretired under  clause (k)  of rule  2046 of the Rules can be\nretired on  their completing  30 years of qualifying service\nif they\t are  governed\tby  the\t pension  rules.  Similarly,\nrailway\t servants  holding  Class  III\tposts  and  who\t are\ngoverned by  the pension  rules to  whom clause\t (k) of rule\n2046 of\t the Rules  is not applicable can also be retired on\ntheir completing  30 years  of qualifying service. Thus, the\narea of\t operation of para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual\nis different  from that\t of clauses (h) and (k) of rule 2046\nof the Rules. [748D-G]\n     1.3 Para  620 of  the Railway  Pension Manual which has\nbeen framed  by the  Union Government  in  exercise  of\t its\nexecutive power under Article 73<\/a> of the Constitution should,\ntherefore, be treated as supple-\n743\nmentary to  rule 2046  of the  Rules, and  given due  effect\nsince there is no statutory provision or a rule framed under\nthe proviso  to Article\t 309<\/a> of\t the Constitution  which  is\ninconsistent with it. [748G-H]\n     2.\t Since\t the  respondent   had\traised\t some  other\ncontentions with  regard to  the validity  of  the  impugned\norder of  retirement in\t the petition and the High Court has\nnot expressed  its opinion on those contentions, the case is\nremanded to  the Division Bench of the High Court to dispose\nof the\tappeal afresh  in the light of the submissions to be\nmade by\t the respondent\t on the\t other contentions raised by\nhim. [749C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1583 of
\n1987.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  22.4.1987  of\t the
\nMadras High Court in W.A. No. 367 of 1983.\n<\/p>\n
     G.\t Ramaswamy,   Additional   Solicitor   General,\t  P.
\nParmeshwaran, B. Parthasarthy for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     M.N.  Krishnamani\t and   S.   Balakrishnan   for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATARAMIAH, J.\tThe short  question involved in this
\ncase is\t whether Para  620 of  the Manual of Railway Pension
\nRules,\t1950,  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘Railway
\nPension Manual’)  under which  the  competent  authority  is
\nempowered to  retire a\trailway employee  before his  normal
\ndate of\t retirement is\tfor any\t reason void, ineffective or
\nunconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent,  R.  Narasimhan,  joined  the  Southern
\nRailway as  a Ticket Collector in the year 1950 and on being
\npromoted at  different stages he was working as a Travelling
\nTicket\tExaminer   on  14th   of  May,\t 1982  when  he\t was
\ncompulsorily retired from service by the competent authority
\nin the\tRailway Administration\tin exercise  of\t his  powers
\nunder Para  2(2) of  the  Railway  Ministry’s  Letter  dated
\n8.7.1950 (incorporated\tas Para\t 620 of\t the Railway Pension
\nManual). The  respondent was  born on  23.9.1929 and  if the
\norder of retirement had not been passed, as stated above, he
\nwould have  continued in  service till he completed 58 years
\nof age. Aggrieved by the order of retirement, the respondent
\nfiled a\t Writ Petition\tin the\tHigh Court of Madras in Writ
\nPetition No.  4079 of  1982 questioning\t the validity of the
\nsaid
\n744<\/span>
\norder and  also of  Para 620  of the  Railway Pension Manual
\nwhich empowered\t the Railway  Administration to\t retire\t its
\nemployees on  their completing 30 years of service. The Writ
\nPetition was  contested by  the Railway\t Administration\t and
\nultimately it  was dismissed  by the learned Single Judge of
\nthe High  Court of  Madras. Aggrieved by the judgment of the
\nlearned Single\tJudge the  respondent filed an appeal before
\nthe Division  Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 367
\nof 1983.  The Division\tBench held  that  Para\t620  of\t the
\nRailway Pension\t Manual whose  validity had been impugned in
\nthe Writ Appeal was void and ineffective and hence the order
\nof  retirement\tpassed\tby  the\t Railway  Administration  in
\nexercise of  the power conferred by the said para was liable
\nto be  set aside.  Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division
\nBench, the  Union of  India and\t the Railway  Administration
\nhave filed this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to appreciate the contentions of the parties,
\nit is  necessary to set out the relevant rules governing the
\nretirement of  railway employees.  Rule 2046  of the  Indian
\nRailway Establishment  Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nRules’)\t deals\t with  compulsory   retirement\tof   railway
\nservants. The relevant part of the said rule reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “2046 (F.R.  56).-(a) Except as otherwise provided
\n\t  in this  rule, every\trailway servant shall retire
\n\t  on the  day he  attains  the\tage  of\t fifty-eight
\n\t  years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  ………………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (h)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\n\t  this rule,  the appointing  authority shall, if it
\n\t  is of\t the  opinion  that  it\t is  in\t the  public
\n\t  interest to  do so,  have the\t absolute  right  to
\n\t  retire any  railway servant  giving him  notice of
\n\t  not less  than three\tmonths in  writing or  three
\n\t  months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)  if he  is in  Class I  or Class II service or
\n\t       post  and   had\tentered\t Government  Service
\n\t       before  attaining   the\tage  of\t thirty-five
\n\t       years, after he has attained the age of fifty
\n\t       years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) in any  other case  after he has attained the
\n\t       age of fifty-five years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)  Any railway  servant may\t by giving notice of
\n\t  not
\n745<\/span>
\n\t  less\tthan   three  months   in  writing   to\t the
\n\t  appointing authority\tretire from service after he
\n\t  has attained\tthe age\t of fifty  years if he is in
\n\t  Class I  or Class  II\t service  or  post  and\t had
\n\t  entered Government  service before  attaining\t the
\n\t  age of  thirty-five years,  and in all other cases
\n\t  after he has attained the age of fifty-five years.
\n\t  ………………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (k)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\n\t  clause (h)  the appointing  authority shall, if it
\n\t  is of\t the  opinion  that  it\t is  in\t the  public
\n\t  interest to  do so,  have the\t absolute  right  to
\n\t  retire a  railway servant  in Class III service or
\n\t  post who  is not  governed by\t any  pension  rules
\n\t  after he  has completed  thirty years’  service by
\n\t  giving him notice of not less than three months in
\n\t  writing or  three months’  pay and  allowances  in
\n\t  lieu of such notice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Para 620 of the Railway Pension Manual reads thus:
\n\t  “620(i). A Railway servant may retire from service
\n\t  at any  time after completing 30 years’ qualifying
\n\t  service, provided  that  he  shall  give  in\tthis
\n\t  behalf a  notice in  writing\tto  the\t appropriate
\n\t  authority, at\t least three  months before the date
\n\t  on which he wishes to retire.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  ………………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (ii) The\t authority competent  to remove\t the
\n\t  Railway servant  from service may also require him
\n\t  to retire  any time  after  he  has  completed  30
\n\t  years’  qualifying   service\tprovided   that\t the
\n\t  authority shall  give in  this behalf, a notice in
\n\t  writing to  the Railway  servant, at\tleast  three
\n\t  months before\t the date on which he is required to
\n\t  retire or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu
\n\t  of such notice.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     There is  no dispute that the respondent is governed by
\nthe pension  rules as  he has  exercised his  option  to  be
\ngoverned by  them. His contentions before the Division Bench
\nwere: (i)  Rule 2046  of the  Rules having been framed under
\nthe proviso  to Article\t 309<\/a> of the Constitution and being a
\ncompendious code  relating to a retired railway servant that
\nprovision  alone   could  be  invoked  for  the\t purpose  of
\ncompulsory retirement  and  not\t para  620  of\tthe  Railway
\nPension Manual which is in
\n746<\/span>
\nthe nature of an executive order; (ii) Since rule 2046(h) of
\nthe Rules  opens with  a non obstante clause and para 620 of
\nthe Railway Pension Manual does not state that the said rule
\nshall prevail  notwithstanding any  other provision  to\t the
\ncontrary, rule\t2046(h) of  the Rules cannot be made subject
\nto para\t 620 of\t the Railway Pension Manual; and (iii) there
\nbeing two  separate provisions\twith  regard  to  compulsory
\nretirement, namely  clause (h) of rule 2046 of the Rules and
\npara 620  of the  Railway Pension  Manual, in the absence of
\nany guidance as to when and which rule could be invoked in a
\ngiven case,  both the  provisions would\t be inapplicable and
\nthe respondent\tcould not be compulsorily retired. A reading
\nof the\trelevant part of rule 2046 of the Rules and para 620
\nof the\tRailway Pension\t Manual shows  that ordinarily every
\nrailway servant has to retire on the date he attains the age
\nof 58  years. Notwithstanding  the said\t rule the appointing
\nauthority, if  it is of the opinion that it is in the public
\ninterest to  do so,  has the  power to\tretire\tany  railway
\nservant giving\thim notice  of not less than three months in
\nwriting or  three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such
\nnotice, if  he is in Class I or Class II service or post and
\nhad entered  Government service\t before attaining the age of
\n35 years,  after he  has attained the age of 50 years and in
\nany other  case after  he has  attained the age of 55 years.
\nSimilarly a railway servant may by giving notice of not less
\nthan three  months in  writing to  the appointing  authority
\nretire from  service if he is in Class I or Class II service
\nor post\t and had entered Government service before attaining
\nthe age\t of 35 years, after he has attained the age of fifty
\nyears, and  in all other cases after he has attained the age
\nof 55 years. These two kinds of retirement are dealt with in
\nclauses (h) and (i) of rule 2046 of the Rules. The governing
\nfactor in clauses (h) and (i) of rule 2046 is the age of the
\nemployee concerned at the time when it is proposed to retire
\nhim from  service or  when he  wishes to retire from service
\nvoluntarily as\tthe case  may be. This rule applies no doubt
\nto all\temployees irrespective\tof the fact whether they are
\ngoverned by  the pension  rules or  not. Clause\t (k) of rule
\n2046 provides  that notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\nclause (h)  the appointing  authority shall, if it is of the
\nopinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the
\nabsolute right\tto retire  a railway  servant in  Class\t III
\nservice or  post who  is not  governed by  any pension rules
\nafter he  has completed\t thirty years’ service by giving him
\nnotice of  not less  than three\t months in  writing or three
\nmonths’ pay  and allowances  in lieu  of such notice. Clause
\n(1) of\trule 2046  of the  Rules  provides  that  a  railway
\nservant in  Class III service or post who is not governed by
\nany pension  rules, may\t by giving  notice of  not less than
\nthree months  in writing to the appointing authority, retire
\nfrom service  after he\thas completed thirty years’ service.
\nIt may be noted that in clauses (k) and
\n747<\/span>
\n(1) of\trule 2046  of the  Rules the governing factor is not
\nthe age\t of the\t railway servant concerned but the length of
\nthe qualifying\tservice rendered by him. They are applicable
\nonly to\t a railway  servant in\tClass III  service  who\t has
\ncompleted 30  years of service in railway administration. If
\na railway  servant in  Class III  service  has\tentered\t the
\nservice during\this 21st  year he  can\tbe  retired  by\t the
\nGovernment on his completing 30 years of service in his 51st
\nyear or he may elect to retire from service in his 51st year
\nafter completing  30  years  of\t service  by  following\t the
\nprescribed formalities. Clauses (k) and (I) of rule 2046, as
\nalready stated\tabove, do  not apply to railway servants who
\nare governed  by pension  rules. Para  620  of\tthe  Railway
\nPension\t Manual,   which  is   extracted   above,   contains
\nprovisions corresponding to clauses (k) and (I) of rule 2046
\nof the\tRules. Under  sub-para (i)  of para  620  a  railway
\nservant governed  by  the  pension  rules  may\tretire\tfrom
\nservice at  any time after completing 30 years of qualifying
\nservice provided  that he  has given  a notice in writing to
\nthe appointing\tauthority three\t months before\tthe date  on
\nwhich he  wishes to retire. Sub-para (ii) of para 620 of the
\nRailway Pension\t Manual, which\tcorresponds to clause (k) of
\nrule 2046  of the Rules, empowers the competent authority to
\nremove a  railway servant from service any time after he has
\ncompleted 30  years of\tqualifying service provided that the
\nauthority has  given in\t this behalf  a notice in writing to
\nthe railway servant at least three months before the date on
\nwhich he  is required  to retire  or three  months’ pay\t and
\nallowances in lieu of such notice. It may also be noted that
\nwhile clauses  (k) and\t(1) of\trule 2046 of the Rules apply
\nonly to\t a railway  servant in Class III service or post not
\ngoverned by  any pension  rules\t para  620  of\tthe  Railway
\nPension Manual\tapplies to  all railway servants governed by
\nthe pension rules.\n<\/p>\n
     The Division Bench of the High Court has held that para
\n620 of\tthe  Railway  Pension  Manual  was  ineffective\t and
\ninvalid on  the ground\tthat it was `unable to see any logic
\nor reason or any guidance for the purpose of invoking either
\none or\tother  of  the\tprovisions’  and  also\thas  further
\nobserved thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “In the circumstances therefore, particularly
\n\t  in view of the fact that the Railway Establishment
\n\t  Code is  intended to govern the service conditions
\n\t  of all  the individual  railway servants  and\t the
\n\t  Pension Rules\t are intended  only  to\t govern\t the
\n\t  determination of  pension, and Rule 2046 itself is
\n\t  in  a\t  way  of   compendious\t rule\trelating  to
\n\t  retirement at\t the age  of 58 years and compulsory
\n\t  retirement earlier  we are  of the  view that\t the
\n\t  case is governed by Rule 2046(h) only and not
\n748<\/span>
\n\t  by Rule 620 of the Pension Rules. This is also for
\n\t  the  reason  as  rightly  contended  by  Mr.\tN.C.
\n\t  Raghavachari, learned\t counsel for  the appellant,
\n\t  that while  Rule 2046(k)  starts with\t saying that
\n\t  notwithstanding anything  contained in  Clause (h)
\n\t  there is  no such non obstante clause in Rule 620,
\n\t  nor clause  (h) of  Rule 2046\t is made  subject to
\n\t  Rule 620.  In the  circumstances, therefore, it is
\n\t  open to  the railway servant to contend that he is
\n\t  governed by  Rule 2046(h) and not Rule 620. In the
\n\t  absence of  any guiding principle specifically, it
\n\t  is not  open to  the\tDepartment  to\texercise  an
\n\t  option either\t to invoke Rule 620 or clause (h) of
\n\t  Rule 2046.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Having observed  thus, the\t Division Bench\t was of\t the
\nview  that   since  Rule   2046(h)  of\tthe  Rules  was\t not
\napplicable, as the respondent had not attained the age of 55
\nyears on the date when he was compulsorily retired, he could
\nnot have  been compulsorily  retired. We  do  not  find\t any
\ninconsistency between rule 2046 of the Rules and para 620 of
\nthe Railway  Pension Manual.  As already stated by us clause\n<\/p>\n
(h) of\trule  2046  of\tthe  Rules  empowers  the  competent
\nauthority to  retire compulsorily  a railway  servant on his
\nattaining the  age specified  therein. That  clause  has  no
\nreference to  the length  of service  put in  by  a  railway
\nservant concerned.  Clause (k)\tof rule\t 2046 of  the  Rules
\nunder which  the appointing authority can retire a person in
\nthe public interest after a railway servant has completed 30
\nyears of  service applies  to a\t railway servant  holding  a
\nClass III  post and  who is  not governed  by pension rules.
\nPara 620  of the  Railway  Pension  Manual  applies  to\t all
\nrailway servants  governed by  the  pension  rules.  Railway
\nservants holding  Class I  or Class  II posts  who cannot be
\nretired under  clause (k)  of rule  2046 of the Rules can be
\nretired on  their completing  30 years of qualifying service
\nif they are governed by the pension rules. Similarly railway
\nservants holding Class III posts and who are governed by the
\npension rules  to whom\tclause (k) of rule 2046 of the Rules
\nis not applicable can also be retired on their completing 30
\nyears of  qualifying service.  Thus the area of operation of
\npara 620  of the  Railway Pension  Manual is  different from
\nthat of\t clause (h)  and (k) of rule 2046 of the Rules. Para
\n620 of\tthe Railway  Pension Manual  should  be\t treated  as
\nsupplementary to rule 2046 of the Rules. The said para which
\nhas been  framed by  the Union Government in exercise of its
\nexecutive power\t under Article 73<\/a> of the Constitution should
\nbe given  due effect  since there is no statutory provisions
\nor a  rule framed  under the  proviso to  Article 309<\/a> of the
\nConstitution which is inconsistent with it.\n<\/p>\n
749<\/span><\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  overrule  the  view  expressed  by\t the
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court on the above question and
\nuphold the  validity of\t para 620  of  the  Railway  Pension
\nManual.\n<\/p>\n
     Unfortunately, the\t case does  not end here. It appears
\nthat the  respondent had  raised some other contentions with
\nregard to  the validity\t of the impugned order of retirement
\nin the\tpetition. But  the Division  Bench of the High Court
\nhas not\t expressed its opinion on those contentions since it
\nagreed with  the first\tcontention urged  on behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent, namely,  para 620  of the Railway Pension Manual
\nwas invalid. We are, therefore, constrained to send the case
\nback to\t the Division  Bench of the High Court to decide the
\nother questions raised by the respondent. We, therefore, set
\naside the  judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt and  remand the case to the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt to  dispose of  the appeal  afresh in the light of the
\nsubmissions to\tbe made\t by  the  respondent  on  the  other
\ncontentions raised by him.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is accordingly\t disposed of.  There  is  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t       Appeal allowed.\n750<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1733, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 741 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: R. NARASIMHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/08\/1988 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) DUTT, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-08T06:52:27+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=\"18 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-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T06:52:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2608,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T06:52:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988\"}]},{\"@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 & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-08T06:52:27+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988","datePublished":"1988-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T06:52:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988"},"wordCount":2608,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T06:52:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-r-narasimhan-on-1-august-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs R. Narasimhan on 1 August, 1988"}]},{"@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\/251985","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=251985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}