{"id":254784,"date":"2010-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-30T19:04:25","modified_gmt":"2017-10-30T13:34:25","slug":"t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity &#8230; on 6 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity &#8230; on 6 December, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 36339 of 2010(N)\n\n\n1. T.ROY XAVIER,THYKKUTTATHIL HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SIVARAMAN NAIR.N.ASWATHY,MATTOM(SOUTH)\n3. JOHN DARREL,PRINCE NAGAR,\n4. P.H.ABDUL RASHEED,'PEYECH',\n5. VARGHESE.K.J,KONATH HOUSE,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,HRMS,VAIDHYUTHI\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.P.K.RADHIKA\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :06\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                S. Siri Jagan, J.\n                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                        W.P(C) No. 36339 of 2010\n                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n             Dated this, the 6th day of December, 2010.\n\n                               J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      The petitioners were employees of the Kerala State Electricity<\/p>\n<p>Board. They have retired from service subsequent to 1.7.2003. After<\/p>\n<p>their retirement, the scales of pay of the employees of the Kerala<\/p>\n<p>State Electricity Board have been revised with retrospective effect<\/p>\n<p>from the date prior to their retirement. The petitioners&#8217; grievance in<\/p>\n<p>this writ petition is that although their pay was revised accordingly,<\/p>\n<p>the petitioners were not paid revised DCRG and commutted value of<\/p>\n<p>pension in terms of the pay revision. The petitioners therefore seek<\/p>\n<p>the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>      &#8220;(a)  Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,<br \/>\n      order or direction to extend the benefits of enhanced DCRG and<br \/>\n      enhanced rate of commutation of pension on the revised pension<br \/>\n      consequent on the revision of pay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>      (b)   issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,<br \/>\n      order or direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of<br \/>\n      clause 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 of Ext. P1 order and to quash the provisions<br \/>\n      discriminating pensioners based on the date of retirement.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\n<p id=\"p_3\">      2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for Electricity<\/p>\n<p>Board.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">      3. An identical question was considered by a learned d Judge of<\/p>\n<p>this Court in a batch of writ petitions, viz. W.P(C) Nos.26661, 30613,<\/p>\n<p>31366, 34565 &amp; 37707\/2009 and 2158\/2010. In that judgment, it<\/p>\n<p>was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>             &#8220;Issue raised in these writ petitions are common and<br \/>\n      therefore the cases were heard together and are disposed of by<br \/>\n      common judgment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>             2.    Petitioners were employees of the Kerala State<br \/>\n      Electricity Board, who have retired from service on various dates<br \/>\n      subsequent to 1.7.2003. In these writ petitions they challenge<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">W.P.C. No. 36339\/2010.                -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      some of the provisions of the Board Order.No.2748\/2008<br \/>\n      (PS1\/1428\/2007) dated 11.11.2008. While some of the petitioners<br \/>\n      are challenging clause (6) providing for a ceiling of DCRG, the<br \/>\n      other petitioners are challenging clause 7.1 and 7.2 providing for<br \/>\n      commutation of pension and restoration of commuted portion of<br \/>\n      pension.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>              3. The impugned provisions Ext.P1 Board order referred to<br \/>\n      above, are extracted below for reference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_5\"><p>           &#8221; Ceiling on Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity(DCRG)<\/p>\n<p>           6.1 The ceiling of the maximum amount of DCRG will be raised<br \/>\n           from Rs.2,80,000\/- to Rs.3,30,000\/- to those who retired on or<br \/>\n           after 1.8.2006. Those who retired before1.8.2006 are eligible<br \/>\n           only for DCRG amount limited to Rs.2.80 lakhs only. All other<br \/>\n           conditions   governing   payment   of   DCRG     shall  remain<br \/>\n           unchanged.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_6\"><p>           Commutation of Pension and restoration of Commuted Portion<br \/>\n           of Pension.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_7\"><p>           7.1 The existing rate of 1\/3rd of the Basic Pension for<br \/>\n           commutation of pension will be enhanced to 40% of the pension<br \/>\n           based on the revised pay, in the case of retirement on or after<br \/>\n           1.9.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_8\"><p>           7.2 Those who retired from 1.7.2003 to 31.8.2007, are entitled<br \/>\n           to commute only 1\/3rd of the pension admissible on the pre-<br \/>\n           revised pay and they are not entitled to commute 1\/3rd of the<br \/>\n           pension admissible on the revised pay. In the case of<br \/>\n           commutation, already settled cases will not be reopened.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_9\"><p>              4. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that,<br \/>\n      being retired employee of the Board, all the pensioners form one<br \/>\n      class. It is stated that by the aforesaid provisions of Ext.P1 Board<br \/>\n      order, the existing benefits of DCRG and the commuted value of<br \/>\n      pension were revised.        According to them while revising or<br \/>\n      liberalizing    the    benefits,   the    existing    one   class   of<br \/>\n      pensioners\/beneficiaries, have been classified into two, on the<br \/>\n      basis of a cut off date fixed by the Board and that on the basis of<br \/>\n      the cut off date, those who retired prior to the cut off date are<br \/>\n      denied the revised benefit, while those who have retired<br \/>\n      subsequent to the cut off date have been given the revised<br \/>\n      benefits. It is contended that such classification is irrational and<br \/>\n      opposed to th law laid down by the Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1416283\/\" id=\"a_1\">D.S.Nakara &amp;<br \/>\n      Ors. V. Union of India<\/a> ( AIR 1983 SCC 130) and therefore the<br \/>\n      petitioners are entitled to the benefits as revised by Ext.P1 on a<br \/>\n      par with those who have retired, after the cut off dates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_10\"><p>              5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Board. In the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">W.P.C. No. 36339\/2010.                -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      counter affidavit no justification is forthcoming regarding the<br \/>\n      fixation of the cut off date as incorporated in the impugned<br \/>\n      provisions of the Board order. Board also has not succeeded in<br \/>\n      showing that the benefits provided in the impugned provisions are<br \/>\n      anything other than revision of the existing benefits. They have<br \/>\n      also not put forward any other justification for fixing such a cut off<br \/>\n      date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_11\"><p>             6. In such a situation, in my view, having regard to the law<br \/>\n      laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above, the<br \/>\n      cut off date introduced and the discrimination of one set of<br \/>\n      pensioners is unsustainable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_12\"><p>             7. In the judgment in Nakara&#8217;s case, after referring to the<br \/>\n      various precedents it was held that pension is neither a bounty nor<br \/>\n      a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer.<br \/>\n      Therefore, the Apex Court held as follows.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_13\"><p>           &#8220;Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all<br \/>\n           relevant considerations are the same, persons holding<br \/>\n           identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of<br \/>\n           their  pay    merely  because     they   belong   to  different<br \/>\n           departments. If that cannot be done when they are in service,<br \/>\n           can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this<br \/>\n           principle, one can confidently say that if pensioners form a<br \/>\n           class, their computation cannot be by different formula<br \/>\n           affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some<br \/>\n           retired earlier and some retired later.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_14\"><p>             8. It may have been possible for the Board to justify a cut<br \/>\n      off date and denial of revised benefits to those retired subsequent<br \/>\n      to the cut off date. Cases involving introduction of new benefits,<br \/>\n      cases where financial constrains are         pleaded are some of the<br \/>\n      instances where cut off date specified have been upheld. But such<br \/>\n      justification is possible only in cases where facts in support thereof<br \/>\n      are adequately pleaded with sufficient supporting material, which<br \/>\n      is totally absent in this case. Having regard to the above, in the<br \/>\n      light of the law thus laid down, I cannot sustain the classification<br \/>\n      attempted by the Board in the impugned provisions. Therefore the<br \/>\n      provision in clause6(1) providing that those who have retired prior<br \/>\n      to 1.8.2006 are eligible to DCRG            limited to Rs.2.80 lakhs,<br \/>\n      provision in clause 7.1 that those who have retired after 1.9.2007<br \/>\n      alone will be entitled to 40% of the basic pension      and clause 7.2<br \/>\n      in so far as it provides that those who have retied from 1.7.2003 to<br \/>\n      31.8.2007 are entitled to only 1\/3rd of the pension admissible on<br \/>\n      the pre-revised pay and that they are not entitled to commute 1\/3rd<br \/>\n      of the pension admissible on the revised pay are unsustainable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_15\"><p>             Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of, quashing<br \/>\n      clauses 6.1,7.1 and 7.2 to the extent it discriminates employees on<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">W.P.C. No. 36339\/2010.               -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      the basis of their date of retirement and directing            the<br \/>\n      respondents to extend the benefit of DCRG and commutation of<br \/>\n      pension uniformly to the petitioners without discrimination on the<br \/>\n      basis of their dates of retirement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_16\"><p>             Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_6\">I am in agreement with the said judgment.               Therefore, this writ<\/p>\n<p>petition is also disposed of in terms of that judgment.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">                                              Sd\/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">Tds\/<\/p>\n<p>             [TRUE COPY]<\/p>\n<p>                   P.S TO JUDGE.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity &#8230; on 6 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 36339 of 2010(N) 1. T.ROY XAVIER,THYKKUTTATHIL HOUSE, &#8230; Petitioner 2. SIVARAMAN NAIR.N.ASWATHY,MATTOM(SOUTH) 3. JOHN DARREL,PRINCE NAGAR, 4. P.H.ABDUL RASHEED,&#8217;PEYECH&#8217;, 5. VARGHESE.K.J,KONATH HOUSE, Vs 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, &#8230; Respondent [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-254784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity ... on 6 December, 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\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity ... on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-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=\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-30T13:34:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity &#8230; on 6 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T13:34:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1209,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010\",\"name\":\"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity ... on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T13:34:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity &#8230; on 6 December, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity ... on 6 December, 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\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity ... on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-30T13:34:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity &#8230; on 6 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T13:34:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010"},"wordCount":1209,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010","name":"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity ... on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T13:34:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-roy-xavier-vs-the-kerala-state-electricity-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Roy Xavier vs The Kerala State Electricity &#8230; on 6 December, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/254784","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=254784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254784\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}