{"id":268762,"date":"2003-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003"},"modified":"2017-01-19T19:33:51","modified_gmt":"2017-01-19T14:03:51","slug":"m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 30\/04\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nWRIT PETITION No.11777 OF 2002\nAND\nWPMP.NO.15868 OF 2002\n and\nWVMP.NO.695 OF 2003\n\n\nM. Sigamani\nS\/o. Munusamy                   .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Management of\nCentral Institute of Plastics\nEngineering &amp; Technology,\nRep. by its Director General,\nGuindy, Chennai 32.             .. Respondent\n\n        Petition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of  the  Constitution  of  India  for\nissuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.Fredrick Castro\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.A.  Thirumurthy\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        Petitioner  was  working  under  the  respondent  as  Senior Technical<br \/>\nOfficer.  It is asserted that the employees of the respondent are  covered  by<br \/>\nvarious  rules  of  the Government of India such as Fundamental Rules, CCS CCA<br \/>\nRules, etc.   The  respondent  has  framed  certain  rules  contained  in  the<br \/>\nAdministrative Manual, wherein it is indicated These Rules are framed for the<br \/>\neffective functioning  and  administration of CIPET.  Wherever CIPET rules are<br \/>\nsilent  on  any  subject,  Central  Government  rules  on  the   subject   are<br \/>\napplicable.   It  is  stated  that  in  the year 1999, an enquiry was started<br \/>\nagainst one Karupusamy, a Senior Technical  Officer  with  regard  to  certain<br \/>\nirregularities committed  by  him.  In course of enquiry, to a question put by<br \/>\nthe Management, the aforesaid Karupusamy gave answer  that  the  students  had<br \/>\npaid  the  course  fee  to  him  and  he  had  given  the  same to the present<br \/>\npetitioner.  On the basis of said enquiry, aforesaid  Karupusamy  was  imposed<br \/>\nwith punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with no promotion for 5 years, but<br \/>\nretained in  Chennai.  An order of transfer dated 10.10.2000 was issued to the<br \/>\npresent petitioner transferring him from Chennai to Bhopal.   At  that  stage,<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  made  a  representation  indicating  that  he  should  not be<br \/>\nsubjected to transfer as a measure of punishment.  The respondent then  issued<br \/>\na  charge-sheet  against  the  petitioner  and initiated departmental enquiry.<br \/>\nUltimately, the enquiry officer  submitted  a  report  accepting  the  charges<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner.  On the basis of the said report, the Director General<br \/>\nhas passed the order dated 28.3.2002 to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">         .  .    .    I  have  gone  through  your explanation dated 7.1.2002<br \/>\nsubmitted by you in response to the  Memorandum  dt.2.1.2002.    I  have  also<br \/>\nperused in  detail  the inquiry proceedings and other related files.  I do not<br \/>\nfind any mitigating reasons to absolve you from  the  charges  framed  against<br \/>\nyou.   Again  in  the  interest  of  fair  justice  you  have  been  given the<\/p>\n<p>opportunity of personal hearing on 11.03.2002 and the same  was  postponed  to<br \/>\n28.03.2002 at  your  behest.    You  have  been  heard  personally  by  me  on<br \/>\n28.03.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        I am of the view that the findings of the Inquiry Officer is in  order<br \/>\nand  the  misconduct  committed  by  you is grave in nature warranting serious<br \/>\nconsideration with severe punishment.  As a responsible Officer one has to act<br \/>\nprudently in the interest of the organisation.  The  way  in  which  you  have<br \/>\nconducted  yourself  and  responded  to  the proceedings shows your easy going<br \/>\nattitude and non-committed to the profession and to  the  Institute.    During<br \/>\npersonal hearing also your reply is not convincing enough.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        Even   though   the   misconduct  committed  by  you  warrants  severe<br \/>\nproportionate punishment, considering your age and your  career  prospects,  a<br \/>\nlenient  view  is taken and you are transferred to CIPET Bhopal with immediate<br \/>\neffect.  You have to report for duty at Bhopal on or before 15 th April  2002.<br \/>\n.  .  .<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        2.   The  above  order  is  being  challenged by the petitioner on the<br \/>\nground that transfer is not one of the punishments contemplated under Rule  60<br \/>\nof  the  CIPET  Administrative  Manual and therefore, transfer should not have<br \/>\nbeen imposed as a punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        3.  Rule 60 is to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">         60.  The following are the penalties which may be imposed  on  CIPET<br \/>\nemployees:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">Minor Penalties<\/p>\n<p>        i.  Censure<br \/>\nii.  Withholding of promotion<br \/>\niii.   Recovery  from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by<br \/>\nan employee to the institute by breach of orders or by negligence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        a.  Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for  a  period<br \/>\nnot exceeding 3 years without cumulative effect.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">iv.  Withholding of increments of pay.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        Major Penalties:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">        v.   Save  as  provided  for in Clause (iii) (a), reduction to a lower<br \/>\nstage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions<br \/>\nas to whether or not the employee will  earn  increments  of  pay  during  the<br \/>\nperiod  of  such  reduction  and  whether  on  the  expiry  of such period the<br \/>\nreduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments<br \/>\nof his pay.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">vi.  Reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which  shall<br \/>\nnot  ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the employee to the time scale of<br \/>\npay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further<br \/>\ndirections regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service<br \/>\nfrom which the employee  was  reduced  and  his  seniority  and  pay  on  such<br \/>\nrestoration to that grade, post or service.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">vii.   Removal  from service which shall not be a disqualification for further<br \/>\nemployment elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">viii.  Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for<br \/>\nfuture employment elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">ix.  Compulsory retirement.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">        4.  A perusal  of  the  aforesaid  rule  clearly  indicates  that  the<br \/>\ntransfer is not a punishment to be imposed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">        5.   In  the  present  case,  from  the impugned order, which has been<br \/>\nextracted, it is apparent that the order of transfer  has  been  passed  as  a<br \/>\nmeasure of  punishment.    Since  the  penalty  which  can be imposed had been<br \/>\nenumerated and transfer is not one of the penalties, it is  obvious  that  the<br \/>\norder  passed  by the Managing Director is not contemplated under the relevant<br \/>\nrules governing the field and such an order cannot be sustained and in  normal<br \/>\ncourse, such an order is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">                6.   Learned  counsel for the respondent has however submitted<br \/>\nthat the transfer is being an ordinary  incident  of  service,  the  order  of<br \/>\ntransfer,  even  if violation of instructions, cannot be challenged in a court<br \/>\nof law as there is no legally enforceable right.  For the  aforesaid  purpose,<br \/>\nthe learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision reported in AIR 1993<br \/>\nSC 2444 (<a href=\"\/doc\/220487\/\" id=\"a_1\">UNION OF  INDIA  AND  OTHERS  v.    S.L.  ABBAS<\/a>).  He has also placed<br \/>\nreliance on the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in  1995(2)  SCC  532<br \/>\n(<a href=\"\/doc\/553937\/\" id=\"a_2\">CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,  (TELECOM)  N.    E.    TELECOM  CIRCLE AND ANOTHER v.<br \/>\nRAJENDRA CH.  BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS<\/a>).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">                7.  A perusal of the aforesaid decisions makes it  clear  that<br \/>\nratio in  those  cases  is  not  applicable.  In all those cases, the order of<br \/>\ntransfer had been effected for administrative reason and not as a  measure  of<br \/>\npunishment,  whereas  in  the  present  case, the order itself indicates as if<br \/>\ntransfer order has been passed  as  a  measure  of  punishment.    As  already<br \/>\nindicated,  the  rules  relating  to  imposition of penalty do not contemplate<br \/>\ntransfer as a punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">                8.  For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition  is  allowed.<br \/>\nNo costs.  Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\ndpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Management of<br \/>\nCentral Institute of Plastics<br \/>\nEngineering &amp; Technology,<br \/>\nRep.  by its Director General,<br \/>\nGuindy, Chennai 32.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/04\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION No.11777 OF 2002 AND WPMP.NO.15868 OF 2002 and WVMP.NO.695 OF 2003 M. Sigamani S\/o. Munusamy .. Petitioner -Vs- The Management of Central Institute [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003 - 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\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-19T14:03:51+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-19T14:03:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1108,\"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\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003\",\"name\":\"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-19T14:03:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003 - 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\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-19T14:03:51+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-19T14:03:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003"},"wordCount":1108,"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\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003","name":"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-19T14:03:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sigamani-vs-the-management-of-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Sigamani vs The Management Of on 30 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/268762","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=268762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268762\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}