{"id":270411,"date":"1998-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998"},"modified":"2015-05-18T06:39:06","modified_gmt":"2015-05-18T01:09:06","slug":"union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Misra<\/div>\n
Bench: M. Venkataswami, A.P. Misra<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI BIJOY LAL GHOSH AND OTHERS ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/03\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nM. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nMisra, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The common question raised in the aforesaid appeals is,
\nwhether the  respondents, who  were primary  school teachers
\nunder the  Dandakaranaya  Development  Project\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to  as `DDP’),\t under the Ministry of Home Affairs,
\nDepartment of  Rehabilitations, Government  of India, in the
\nrelevant period would be entitled to the higher pay scale as
\nper  the  recommendations  of  the  National  Commission  on
\nTeachers headed\t by Professor  D.P. Chatopadhya (hereinafter
\nreferred to  as\t “National  Commission”)  in  terms  of\t the
\ncircular dated\t12th August,  1987 issued by the Ministry of
\nHuman Resources\t Development, Department  of Education.\t The
\nappellants denied  such\t claim\tas  the\t aforesaid  circular
\napplies only  to the teachers of the schools under the Union
\nTerritories (expect  Chandigarh) including  Government aided
\nschools and  organisations like Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
\nand Central  Tibetian Schools  Administration etc. The claim
\nof the respondents was allowed by the Central Administrative
\nTribunal,  Calcutta   Bench  (hereinafter   referred  to  as
\n`Tribunal’) upholding  the  contention\tof  respondents\t and
\ndirecting the  appellants to  pay at  the revised scale with
\neffect from  1st January,  1986 in  line  with\tthe  Railway
\nMinistry’s circular  dated 11th April, 1988 or the aforesaid
\nHRD Ministry’s\tcircular dated\t12th August,  1987 and\talso
\ngive consequential  refixation of  the pay  under the rules.
\nAggrieved by  the said\torder, the present appeals are filed
\nby the Union of India and others.\n<\/p>\n
     To appreciate the controversy, we refer to short facts.
\nThe respondents\t were initially\t appointed as primary school
\nteachers under\tthe DDP as aforesaid in the Ministry of Home
\nAffairs from the year 1966 onwards. They have been posted at
\nthe various  primary schools.  They have  been posted at the
\nvarious primary\t schools under the said project. As a result
\nof policy decision by the Central Government, it was decided
\non the 1st April, 1986 to handover all the aforesaid schools
\nunder the  DDP to the State Governments and any teachers and
\nother employees\t rendered surplus  were\t taken\ton  roll  of
\nCentral Surplus\t Staff Cell  of the  department of Personnel
\nand Training vide order dated 28th April, 1986. In pursuance
\nof this,  respondents  were  transferred  to  the  aforesaid
\nsurplus\t staff\tcell  with  effect  from  1st  April,  1986.
\nThereafter they\t were re-deployed in the various departments
\nand offices  of the  Central  Government  consequently\twere
\nrelieved  from\tthe  surplus  cell  with  effect  from\t22nd
\nSeptember, 1986\t onwards to join the new postings in various
\nnon-teaching cadres.  This is  not  in\tdispute\t that  these
\nrespondents while working as teachers earlier were given pay
\nscale of  Rs. 226-400  with effect from 1st January, 1973 as
\nper the\t recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission which was
\nsubsequently revised  on the basis of the 4th Pay Commission
\nand were  paid in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from
\n1st January,  1986. The grievance of the respondents is that
\nthey have  not been given the benefit of the recommendations
\nof the\tNational Commission of the teachers by the aforesaid
\nChatopadhya Committee.\tThe said  report was accepted by the
\nMinistry  of  Human  Resources\tDevelopment,  Department  of
\nEduction, which\t is evident  from the  circular\t dated\t12th
\nAugust, 1987,  through which  higher  pay  scale  to  school
\nteachers were  made admissible.\t As this  report  was  given
\neffect from  1st January,  1986, the  respondents claim\t the
\nbenefit as  they were  factually working  on  this  date  as
\nprimary school teachers under the aforesaid DDP.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  denying this  claim submits  that\tthis
\ncircular is  not applicable  to the  teachers working  under
\nDDP. The  National Commission  report is  applicable only to
\nsuch  departments   which  have\t accepted  its\treport.\t The
\nreliance placed\t by  the  respondents  only  refers  to\t the
\nacceptance by  the Defence  and Railway\t department and\t not
\nHome  Ministry\t under\twhich  aforesaid  DDP  was  working.
\nFurther, since\teducation being\t a state  subject under\t the
\nlegislative entry  under the  Constitution and\tthe  schools
\nunder DDP  having been\ttransferred to\tthe State Government
\nconcerned, teachers  under it  would be\t benefitted when the
\nState Government  accepts the  report. The  said report\t was
\naccepted specifically  only for\t the Union Territories as it
\nis also evident by the aforesaid circular dated 12th August,
\n1987. It  is further  submitted that on the date of the said
\ncircular there\tcould  not  be\tany  consideration  for\t the
\nprimary school\tteachers under\tDDP as\tthe very institution
\nunder DDP,  was no  more in  existence, stood transferred to
\nthe State Governments.\n<\/p>\n
The National Commission recommended the following pay scales
\nfor the primary school teachers :-\n<\/p>\n
     Primary School Teachers\t     :\tRs. 1200-2040\/-
\n     Senior Scale (After 12 years)   :\tRs. 1400-2600\/-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Selection Scale (After 12 years
\n     in senior scale and attainment of
\n     qualifications laid down for
\n     TGTs)\t\t\t     :\tRs. 1640-2900\/-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Learned   counsel for  the appellants,  Mr., Subba Rao,
\nsubmits\t that\tthe  respondents   were\t neither  Government
\nservants nor the National Commission report is applicable to
\nall the teachers.\n<\/p>\n
     We will  revert back to this last submission but before
\nit, we\trefer to the latter No. 1028\/A\/W\/(School) dated 15th
\nMarch, 1989, of Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Board.
\nThe relevant portion is quoted hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
     “Sanction\tof  President  has  been
\n     received under  Ministry of Defence
\n     letter quoted  above, addressed  to
\n     Ordnance Factory  Board copy to all
\n     concerned\t ordnance   Fys.   among
\n     others regarding the application of
\n     revised  scales  of  pay,\tteaching
\n     allowance and  special allowance as
\n     sanctioned\t in  Ministry  of  Human
\n     Resources\tDevelopment  (Department
\n     of\t education)  letter  No,  F.  5-
\n     180\/86-UT-I dated\t12.8.1987 (based
\n     on\t the   recommendation\tof   the
\n     National  Commission   on\tTeachers
\n     under  the\t Chairmanship  of  Prof.
\n     D.P. Chattopadhya enclosed with the
\n     above letter  to  the  teachers  of
\n     Ordnance Factory Schools.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Similarly another\tletter\tNo.  E(P&A)  I.87\/PS.5.PE.5,
\ndated 11th  January, 1988  of Railway  Board.  The  relevant
\nportion is quoted hereunder :\n<\/p>\n
     “Sub  :-  Revision of pay scales of
\n\t       school teachers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The Ministry\tof Railways have
\n     on\t the   recommendations\tof   the
\n     National  Commission  on  Teachers,
\n     under  the\t Chairmanship  of  Prof.
\n     D.P.  Chattopadhyay,  decided  that
\n     the revised  (4th\tPay  Commission)
\n     scales  and  selection  Grades  for
\n     teachers on  the Railways should be
\n     further revised  as in the Annexure
\n     attached.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.———————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  The\trevised\t   pay\t scales,
\n     Teaching  Allowance   and\t special
\n     Allowance\tand   special  Allowance
\n     will be applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
\n     The arrears  of pay  for the period
\n     from 1.1.1986  to 31.3.1986,  which
\n     will  accrue  over\t and  above  the
\n     arrears of\t pay consequent upon the
\n     introduction of  the revised scales
\n     of pay  on the  recommendations  of
\n     the 4th  Pay Commission,  vide this
\n     Ministry’s\t   letter     No.    PC-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     IV\/86\/IMP\/Schedule\/1\t   dated
\n     24.9.1986, shall  be  deposited  in
\n     the provident  fund accounts of the
\n     employees.\t  Amendments\tto   the
\n     Railway   service\t (revised   pay)
\n     Rules,   1986,    regulating    the
\n     fixation  of   pay\t in   the  newly
\n     introduced\t  scales   will\t  follow
\n     separately.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  aforesaid   two  letters   indicate,\tso  far\t the
\ndepartments of\tDefence and  the  Railway  adopted  the\t pay
\nscales as  recommended by the aforesaid National Commission,
\nwhich was  over and above the 4th Pay Commission. It is also
\nsignificant that  the acceptance  of the said report is with
\neffect from  1st January,  1986 which  is in consonance with
\nthe aforesaid circular dated 12th August, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     Now, reverting  to the  aforesaid last  submission,  we
\nfind that  the appellant  itself has accepted respondents as
\nGovernment servants  and gave them the scales as recommended
\nboth by the 3rd and the 4th Central Pay Commission. When the
\n4th Central Pay Commission came, Government was aware of the
\naforesaid National  Commission, hence,\tthe scale of the 4th
\nPay Commission\tgranted to  the teachers  was as  an interim
\nmeasure till recommendation of the National Commission. This
\nfact is\t also evident from the aforesaid circular dated 12th
\nAugust, 1987. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder :\n<\/p>\n
     “I am  directed  to  say  that  the
\n     National  Commission  on  Teachers’
\n     under  the\t Chairmanship  or  Prof.
\n     D.P. Chattopadhyay has made various
\n     recommendations concerning\t pay and
\n     services conditions  of teachers at
\n     school level,  pending Government’s
\n     decision on  the report of National
\n     Commission on  Teachers the  Fourth
\n     Central   Pay    Commission    only
\n     recommended the  replacement scales
\n     for school\t teachers.  Accordingly,
\n     these pay\tscales were  implemented
\n     vide    Ministry\t  of\t Finance
\n     (Department    of\t  Expenditure)’s
\n     Notification  No.\tF.  15(1)-IC-\/86
\n     dated 13th September, 1986 and 22nd
\n     September, 1986.  Subsequently,  it
\n     was  clarified   that  the\t revised
\n     scales of\tpay for different grades
\n     of teachers  are based  only on the
\n     recommendations   of   the\t  fourth
\n     Central   Pay    Commission,   that
\n     decision on  the recommendation  of
\n     National Commission  on Teachers is
\n     yet to be taken and that to be done
\n     as soon as possible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t In   partial  modification   of
\n     finance Ministry’s Notification No.
\n     F15(1)\/IC\/86 dated\t 13th September,
\n     1986 and  22nd September,\t1986, by
\n     which replacement scales were given
\n     to school teachers, it has now been
\n     decided that the revised pay scales
\n     of school\tteachers  in  all  Union
\n     Territories   (Except   Chandigarh)
\n     including Government  aided  school
\n     and  organisation\t like\tKendriya
\n     Vidyalaya\tSangathan   and\t Central
\n     Tibetan Schools Administration etc.
\n     will be as under.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Next repelling  the contention  for the appellants that
\nChattopadhya Committee\treport is  not applicable to all the
\nteachers, Shri\tTapas Ray,  learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor the\t respondents, placed before u s the relevant portion
\nof the\taforesaid report  of the National Commission to show
\nthat the  said report  was not\tconfined nor was constituted
\nfor any\t specified Territory,  State or\t Union or  class  of
\nteachers but  was wide\tenough to  include all facets of all
\nclasses of teachers in the entire territory of this country.
\nHe placed the book `The\t Teacher  And\tSociety’  containing
\nreport of  the National Commission on Teachers – I, 1983-85.
\nPage 89\t gives the  resolution of  the Government  of India,
\nMinistry of  Education and Culture (Department of Education)
\nto constitute  National Commission  on Teachers.  Under that
\ntwo  National\tCommissions  were   set\t up  to\t advise\t the
\nGovernment on  various\taspects\t relevant  to  the  teaching
\ncommunity as  specified in  terms of reference. The National
\nCommission No.1\t was to deal with the issues relating to the
\nteachers at  the school\t stage and  the National  Commission
\nNo.2 to deal with the issues relating tot he teachers at the
\nhigher\teducation  level  (including  technical\t education).
\nBroadly, the  terms of\treference included  to lay  down the
\nobjectives for the teaching profession with reference to the
\nsearch for  excellence, breadth of vision and cultivation of
\nvalues in  keeping with the country’s heritage and ideals of
\ndemocracy,  secularism\t and  social   justice.\t To  suggest
\nmeasures  for  fostering  dynamism  in\tthe  profession\t and
\nattracting and\tretaining talented  persons in\tthe teaching
\nprofession. To\trecommend measures  to enhance\tthe role  of
\nteachers in  facilitating, motivating and inspiring students
\nin the\tacquisition of\tknowledge,  skills  and\t values\t and
\npromoting them\tthrough the spread of the scientific temper,
\nsecular\t outlook,   environmental  consciousness  and  civic
\nresponsibility.\t Also\tthe  adequacy  of  arrangements\t for
\npromotion of teachers’ welfare with special reference to the
\nNational Foundation  of\t  Teachers Welfare  and\t to  suggest
\nmodifications wherever necessary.\n<\/p>\n
     Chapter  1\t  page\t1  of  the  report  shows  that\t the
\nCommission and its members visited 21 State Capitals and few
\nother districts\t and discussed\tthe matter  with leaders and
\nsenior officials of the Government and also visited selected
\ninstitutions to\t make on  the spot assessment. At page 26 it
\nreveals under  para 5.16  that\tthe  Commission\t dealt\twith
\nprimary teachers  and referred\tto the\tbad condition of the
\nprimary school\tteachers. The  Commission also\trecorded  at
\npara 5.23 :-\n<\/p>\n
     “The Commission  feels that a stage
\n     has been reached in the development
\n     of education  in this country, when
\n     a bold  decision must  be taken  in
\n     favour  of\t replacing  the\t present
\n     jungle   of   salary   scales   for
\n     teachers\t   and\t     educational
\n     administrators by composite running
\n     scales\t   (See\t\tAppendix
\n     XIII(xvi)……………………..
\n     ….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     At para 5.25 it records as under :-
\n     “As an  illustration of the kind of
\n     running scale,  we have  in mind we
\n     would  suggest  a\tscale  beginning
\n     with Rs.500  as the starting salary
\n     of a  primary  teacher  and  ending
\n     with Rs. 3950 as the maximum of the
\n     grade for\tthe  State  Director  of
\n     Education.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Then, page\t 92 gives the summary of the recommendations
\nwhich clearly reveals that the Commission has dealt with the
\nsubject with  national goal,  the role of the teachers under
\nChapter II,  towards a new design of education under Chapter
\nIII,  Social   justice\t:   Universalisation  of  elementary
\neducation under\t Chapter IV,  the status, working conditions
\nand welfare  of the  teacher under  Chapter  V,\t supply\t and
\nrecruitment of teachers under Chapter VI and the training of
\nteachers  under\t  Chapter  VII,\t  etc.\tAfter  perusing\t the
\n`National Commission  Report’, apart  from  its\t very  name,
\nthere can  be no  doubt that its recommendations are neither
\nconfined to  any specific  Territory nor  only for the Union
\nTerritory, but was actually for the whole country.\n<\/p>\n
     Further, this  fact is also borne out from the question
\nand answer  in\tthe  Parliament\t placed\t by  the  appellants
\nthemselves in  one of  the aforesaid  appeals, which reveals
\nthe concern of the Parliament about its implementation apart
\nfrom the  Union territory.  The relevant portion of the said
\nquestion and answer is also reproduced below :-\n<\/p>\n
     Q.\t “Will\tthe  Minister  of  Human
\n     Resources Development  (a)\t Whether
\n     Union Government  have  issued  any
\n     directives to the States for giving
\n     uniform pay  scales to the teachers
\n     throughout\t   the\t   country    as
\n     recommended    by\t   Chattopadhyay
\n     Commission;————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ————-?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Ans.   Keeping    in    view    the
\n     recommendations of\t the NCT-I,  the
\n     Fourth Central  Pay Commission  and
\n     National Policy  on Education,  the
\n     pay  scales  for  teachers\t in  the
\n     Union Territories have been revised
\n     by the Government. For the teachers
\n     in the  States, the Government have
\n     their     own     mechanism     for
\n     periodically   revising   the   pay
\n     scales    and    related\t service
\n     conditions. It  is\t for  the  State
\n     Governments concerned  to\tsuitably
\n     revise the pay scales applicable to
\n     their teachers. The report of NCT-I
\n     has been  forwarded  to  all  State
\n     Government for appropriate action.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t other\t words,\t it   reveals\tGovernment’s   total
\nacceptance of  the report of the National Commission and, in
\nturn, to  pay the  same\t scales\t to  its  teachers  and\t the
\nacceptance was\tnot confined  to  the  Union  Territory\t but
\nincluded the concerned State Governments.\n<\/p>\n
     Next question  is whether\tthe  respondents,  who\twere
\nteachers on  the relevant  date, were Government servants or
\nnot? The  stand of  the appellant  that they are not. is not
\nsustainable. This  is evident  even by the letter dated 16th
\nSeptember, 1985\t by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department
\nof  Home  Affairs  (Rehabilitation  Division)  Dandakaranaya
\nDevelopment Authority,\tOffice of  Zonal Administrator which
\ncontains Office Order No. 528\/85 which records the following
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Consequent on  promotion\tto  the\t post  of  untrained
\n     Graduate  Teacher\tfrom  Asstt.  Teacher,\tthe  pay  of
\n     Shri……. has  been fixed  at Rs.  350\/- with  effect
\n     from  9.1.1984   with  date   of  next   increment\t  on
\n     9.1.1985\/1.1.1985—————as\t per   pay  fixation
\n     statement given below :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     PAY FIXATION STATEMENT\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1. Name of the Govt. Servant  : Sri Nirmal Kr. Mandal\n<\/p>\n
2. Post held and scale of pay\t: Asstt. Teacher Rs. 260-6\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  -290-EB-6-326-B-366-EB-B\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  -390-10-400\/-\n<\/p>\n
3. Date of promotion as U.G.\n<\/p>\n
   Teacher\t\t\t: 9.1.1984 Forenoon
\n     Admittedly, like  respondents the aforesaid letter also
\nrefers to  one of the Assistant Teachers who was promoted to
\nthe  post   of\tuntrained   graduate  teacher  in  the\tsame
\nDandakaranaya  Development   Authority\tand  the  Government
\nitself describes  such teachers\t as Government\tservant.  We
\nalso find  DDS (Redeployment  of Surplus  Staff) Rules, 1990
\nwhich has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the
\nproviso\t to   Article  309<\/a>   of\t the   Constitution  and  in
\nsupersession of\t the redeployment  of Surplus  Staff against
\nvacancies in  the Central  Civil Services  and Posts  (Group
\n`C’) Rules,  1967, the Redeployment of Surplus Staff against
\nvacancies in  the Central  Civil Services  and Posts  (Group
\n`D’) Rules,  1970, the redeployment of Surplus Staff against
\nvacancies in  the Central  Civil Services  and Posts (Groups
\n`A’ and\t `B’) Rules,  1986, and\t the Redeployment of Surplus
\nStaff\tin    the   Central   Civil   Services\t and   Posts
\n(Supplementary) Rules,\t1989. This was framed for regulating
\nredeployment and  re-adjustment\t of  surplus  staff  against
\nvacancies in  the Central  Civil Services  and Posts. Rule 2\n<\/p>\n
(g) defines  `surplus  staff’  and    `surplus\temployee  or
\nemployees’, to\tmean the  Central Civil servants (other than
\nthose employed\ton ad  hoc, casual, work-charged or contract
\nbasis) and  Rule 2  (g)(b) (3)\trefers to such employees who
\nhave been  rendered surplus  along with\t the post  from\t the
\nMinistries, offices  of the Government of India, as a result
\nof abolition  or winding up either in whole or in part of an
\norganisation of the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  aforesaid letter of the appellant, the
\naforesaid rules\t and the  Central Government  giving to\t the
\nrespondents  the   benefit  or\tthe  3rd  and  the  4th\t Pay
\nCommission report,  it leaves  no room\tfor doubt  that\t the
\nrespondents were  and are Government servants and treated as
\nsuch.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellants,  Mr.\t Subba\tRao,
\nreferred to  the case  of Union\t of India  and\tAnother\t Vs.
\nRajendra Singh\tRajput 1997  (10) SCC 426. This case, in our
\nopinion, does not help the appellants. This was a case where
\nrespondent, a Junior Engineer in Dandakaranaya Project since
\n29.9.1983,  was\t later\ttransferred  being  surplus  to\t the
\nCentral Public\tWorks Department  and he  claimed the higher
\npay scale  of  Rs.  1640-2900  on  the\tground\tthat  Junior
\nEngineers in  the  CPWD\t were  getting\tthat  scale  on\t the
\nprinciple of `equal pay for equal work’. That was upheld and
\nlater Junior  Engineers\/Section Officers  (Horticulture)  in
\nthe CPWD  who could not be promoted to the post of Assistant
\nEngineer  in   the  scale  of  Rs.  2000-3500  due  to\tnon-
\navailability of\t vacancies in  that grade,  was allowed\t the
\nscale of  Assistant Engineer, that is to say Rs.2000-3500 on
\na personal  basis after\t completion of\t15  years  of  total
\nservice but  when later,  the aforesaid Junior Engineer from
\nthe Dandakaranaya  Project also claimed this upgraded scale,
\nthe same was rejected with the following observations :-\n<\/p>\n
     “He cannot\t claim\tthe  benefit  of
\n     ungraded scale  available to Junior
\n     Engineers in CPWD. Moreover, merely
\n     because under  order dated\t 8.8.91,
\n     the respondent  was given\tthe  pay
\n     scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the basis
\n     of the  principle of `equal pay for
\n     equal work`  cannot mean  that  the
\n     respondent\t is   also  entitled  to
\n     claim the\tbenefit of  the upgraded
\n     scale of  Rs.  2000-3500  which  is
\n     available\tin  CPWD  only\t  having
\n     regard to\tthe conditions\tin  that
\n     department and is not applicable to
\n     Junior    Engineers     in\t   other
\n     departments    of\t  the\t Central
\n     Government.  The  respondent  could
\n     not,  therefore,  be  extended  the
\n     benefit of\t pay scale  of Rs. 2000-
\n     3500 on  the  ground  that\t he  has
\n     completed 15  years of  service  as
\n     Junior Engineer.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This was  a case  where claim of Junior Engineer of DDP
\nagainst another\t Junior Engineer  in  CPWD,  who  was  given
\nupgraded scale\tsubsequently, was  rejected on\tthe facts of
\nthat case  which has no application in the present case. The
\npresent case is neither a case of `equal pay for equal work’
\nnor claim based on parity of another on any upgraded post or
\nscale. Here  the claim is based on their own right under the
\nsaid National Commission Report.\n<\/p>\n
     The crux  of controversy  is the  justifiability of the
\nclaim of  the respondents to receive the benefit of scale of
\nthe difference\tof pay\tscale between  what was given by the
\n4th Pay\t Commission  and  later\t enhanced  by  the  National
\nCommission to  the teachers  similarly to the class to which
\nrespondents belong.  Their claim  is confined  to the period
\nbetween\t 1st   January,\t 1986\tto  1st\t  April,  1986.\t The
\nsignificance of\t this is that on 1st April, 1986 respondents
\nwere  declared\t as  surplus  and  were\t gradually  absorbed
\nthereafter in the various Government departments at the same
\nscale  as   they  were\t drawing  on  the  said\t date.\tThat
\nadjudication of\t this claim  have bearing as it would decide
\nwhat pay scale they would be entitled during this period and
\nin case their absorption at the relevant time was at a lower
\nscale then they would be entitled at such adjudicated higher
\npay scale  including consequential  increments in accordance
\nwith the  rules. Respondents  are not  claiming any  benefit
\ngiven to the teachers under the said report after 1st April,
\n1986. In  this regard even the stand of the appellant is not
\nin doubt.  The appellant  has accepted\tthat  absorption  of
\nrespondents to\tthe various  Central Government offices were
\non posts  carrying equal  pay scales which they were drawing
\nat the relevant time. The same is evident from para 5 of the
\nSLP itself  where it  records that in the process of winding
\nup   of\t  Dandakaryanya\t  Project,   all   the\t educational
\ninstitutions rum  under it  were handed\t over to  the  State
\nGovernment of  Madhya Pradesh and Orissa and respondents who
\nwere in\t excess were  declared surplus\tand rendered  to the
\nCentral\t (Surplus   staff)   Cell,   after   allowing\tthem
\nrevised\/replacement scales.  It is  further stated  on their
\nredeployment, they  were relieved  of their  duties from the
\nDDP for\t joining in  different Central\tGovernment  offices,
\norganisations  in  various  posts  carrying  equivalent\t pay
\nscales.\n<\/p>\n
     Here the question is, in case the pay scale as given by
\nthe the National Commission is applicable to the respondents
\nthey would  be entitled\t for their  higher pay scales at the
\nrelevant time. Admittedly, between 1st January, 1986 and 1st
\nApril, 1986,  the respondents  were drawing the pay scale as
\nper the\t 4th Pay  Commission report  which  was\t interim  in
\nnature as  it awaited  pay scale to be given by the National
\nPay Commission.\t If on\tthe relevant date, they are entitled
\nfor the pay scale as per the National Commission report, the
\nclaim of  the respondents  would succeed,  as upheld  by the
\ntribunal as  their absorption have not been on this upgraded
\npay scale.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  respondents, strong  reliance is placed in the
\ncase Purshottam\t Lal and  others  Vs.  Union  of  India\t and
\nanother, 1973  (1)  SCC\t 651.  Relevant\t portion  is  quoted
\nhereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
     “Para 15.\t–  Mr.\tDhebar\tcontends
\n     that it  was for  the Government to
\n     accept the\t recommendations of  the
\n     Pay Commission  and while\tdoing so
\n     to determine  which  categories  of
\n     employees should  be taken\t to have
\n     been  included   in  the  terms  of
\n     reference.\t  We   are   unable   to
\n     appreciate this  point. Either  the
\n     Government has  made  reference  in
\n     respect of all Government employees
\n     or it  h as not. But if it has made
\n     a\treference   in\trespect\t of  all
\n     Government employees and it accepts
\n     the recommendations  it is bound to
\n     implement\tthe  recommendations  in
\n     respect\tof     all    Government
\n     employees. If it does not implement
\n     the report regarding some employees
\n     only  it\tcommits\t a   breach   of
\n     Articles\t14   and   16\tof   the
\n     Constitution.  This   is  what  the
\n     Government has done as far as these
\n     petitioners are concerned.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr. Tapas\tRay, learned senior counsel, submits even in
\nthe  present  case,  reference\twas  made  to  the  National
\nCommission for\tall classes  of teachers comprehensively and
\nthe Central  Government has  accepted the  said\t report\t and
\napplied to  all the  teachers under  it, either\t under Union
\nTerritory or  other departments,  referred  to\tabove,\tthen
\nthere is  no justification for excluding the respondents who
\nwere working  as teachers at the relevant time under Central
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Subba\tRao, learned  counsel  for  the\t appellants,
\nreferred  the\tcase  of  Union\t of  India  and\t Others\t Vs.
\nSecretary, Madras  Civil Audit\t& Accounts  Association\t and
\nAnr,  etc.  1992  (1)  SCR  530\t to  show,  though  case  of
\nPurshottam Lal\t(supra) was  referred, yet report as a whole
\nwas not implemented. Relevant portion is quoted hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
     “Having\tgiven\t  our\t earnest
\n     consideration  we\t are  unable  to
\n     agree with\t the view  taken by  the
\n     Full  Bench   of\tCAT   that   the
\n     principle of  equal pay  for  equal
\n     work is  attracted irrespective  of
\n     the  fact\t that  the   posts  were
\n     identified and upgraded in the year
\n     1987.  There  is  no  dispute  that
\n     after such upgradation, officers in
\n     both the  wings who  are doing  the
\n     equal work\t are  being  paid  equal
\n     pay. But  that cannot be said to be
\n     the situation  as\twell  on  1.1.86
\n     also. The learned counsel, however,
\n     submitted that  the recommendations
\n     of the  Pay  Commission  should  be
\n     accepted as  a whole  in respect of
\n     all the categories of employees. In
\n     this  context   he\t relied\t on  two
\n     decisions\t of   this   Court.   In
\n     Purshottam Lal  and Others V. Union
\n     of India  and another<\/a>, (1973) 1 SCC
\n     651 a  question came up whether the
\n     report of the second Pay Commission
\n     did not deal with the case of those
\n     petitioners. It was held thus :
\n     `Either  the  Government  has  made
\n     reference\t in   respect\tof   all
\n     Government employees or it has not.
\n     But if  it has made  a reference in
\n     respect of all Government employees
\n     and it accepted the recommendations
\n     it\t is   bound  to\t  implement  the
\n     recommendations in\t respect of  all
\n     Government employes. If it does not
\n     implement the report regarding some
\n     employees only  it commits a breach
\n     of\t Articles   14\tand  16\t of  the
\n     Constitution.  That   is  what  the
\n     Government has done as far as these
\n     petitions are concerned.’
\n     In\t P.   Parmeswaran  and\tOrs.  V.
\n     Secretary\tto   the  Government  of
\n     India, (1987)  Suppl. SCC\t18 in  a
\n     short judgment  this Court observed
\n     that because  of the administrative
\n     difficulties the  Government cannot
\n     deny the  benefit\tof  the\t revised
\n     grade and\tscale with  effect  from
\n     January 1,\t 1973 as  in the case of
\n     other person.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This decision  does not  dilute the  principle as\tlaid
\ndown in\t the case  of Purshottam  Lal (supra). In this case,
\nthe appellants\tsubmitted that\tthe office  memorandum dated
\n12th June,  1987 was passed on the recommendation of the 4th
\nCentral Pay  Commission which  consisted of  two parts.\t The
\nfirst part  recommended\t corresponding\tpay  scale  for\t the
\nexisting posts\tin the\tAccounts Wing giving effect from 1st
\nJanuary, 1986. The other part was contained in para 11.38.
\nPursuant to those recommendations, the Government decided to
\nimplement the same, namely, the second part with effect from
\n1st April, 1987. The following passage in this case makes it
\nclear that  it has  not deviated  from the principle as laid
\ndown in Purshottam Lal (supra) but its resultant view was on
\nthe special facts and circumstances of that case.\n<\/p>\n
     “There is\tno dispute  that in  the
\n     instant case the terms of reference
\n     of Pay  Commission applied\t to  all
\n     the   categories\t of   Government
\n     servants. But the question is as to
\n     from which\t date the other category
\n     referred to  above namely Assistant
\n     Accounts Officer  etc.  should  get
\n     the   higher    scales   of    pay.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Identification of\tthese posts  and
\n     the upgradation  cannot be\t treated
\n     as\t      mere\t  administrative
\n     difficulties. The implementation of
\n     the  recommendations   of\tthe  Pay
\n     Commission according  to the  terms
\n     thereof   itself\t involved   this
\n     exercise of creation of posts after
\n     identification which naturally took
\n     some  time.  Therefore,  the  above
\n     decisions\trelied\t upon\tby   the
\n     learned counsel  are of  no help to
\n     there respondents.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The   question raised  there was, whether two different
\ndates of  the applicability  of he same recommendation could
\nbe upheld  when the  report was\t accepted by the Government.
\nThis Court  held that  different dates\tof applicability was
\nnecessary  since   the\tGovernment   in\t terms\tof  the\t Pay
\nCommission  recommendation   was  to   create  posts   after
\nidentification which naturally has to take some time. Hence,
\ntwo different  dates of\t its applicability  when other posts
\nwere yet  to be\t created in  terms of  recommendation itself
\ncannot be  said to   be bad in law. There is no such fact so
\nfar as the present case is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  respondents, reliance  was also  placed in the
\ncase of\t Laljee Dubey  and Others  Vs. Union  of  India\t and
\nOthers\t1974   (2)  SCR\t  249.\tHere  also  the\t appellants’
\ncontention was\tthat letter dated 17th November, 1953 should
\nbe   implemented    because    Government    accepted\t the
\nrecommendation of  `Kalyanwala Committee’.  Hence, denial of
\nits  benefit   to  the\t appellants  is\t  violative  of\t the
\nfundamental rights  guaranteed under  Articles 14  and 16 of
\nthe Constitution. It was submitted there that other checkers
\nperforming duties  similar to  those of\t the appellants have
\nbeen guaranteed\t the benefit  of the  said order.  This case
\nrelying on  the decision and principle of the Purshottam Lal
\n(supra) allowed the appeal of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     After giving  our due  consideration both\tto the facts
\nand the\t law, which  we have  referred above,  it is  not in
\ndispute that  the respondents were teachers working with the
\nCentral Government between 1st January, 1986 an d 1st April,
\n1986.  The   Government\t absorbed   them  in   its   various
\ndepartments at\tthe same  pay scale  which they were drawing
\nthen. The  Central  Government\thas  accepted  the  National
\nCommission (Chattopadhyay Committee) report and gave benefit
\nto all\tits teachers working in the Union Territory and some
\nof its\tdepartments and\t that all  the States  in India have
\nalso  accepted\tthe  same.  The\t documents  on\trecord\talso
\nreveals, apart\tfrom  the  teachers  working  in  the  Union
\nTerritory,  Central   Government  approved   other  teachers
\nworking in  some other\tdepartments. The  pith and substance
\nand spirit of the reply at the Parliament indicates at least
\nCentral Government’s  total acceptance\tfor all its teachers
\nto whom\t the said  report  was\tapplicable.  The  appellant,
\nnamely, Union  of India,  has not brought on record anything
\nto the\tcontrary to  show the  exclusion of respondents from
\ngiving the  said benefit on the relevant date, as were given
\nto all the teachers, who were placed in the same position as
\nthe respondents.  The only argument advanced was, not on the
\nbasis on  any  record  but  as\tsubmission  that  since\t the
\ninstitutions under  DDP were  handed over  to the  States of
\nOrissa and  Madhya Pradesh on the 1st January, 1986 and that
\nnot being  in existence,  respondents having  been taken  as
\nsurplus and  were  in  due  time  absorbed  in\tthe  various
\ndepartments, the  benefit of  the increase  in pay  scale as
\nrecommended by\tthe National  Commission was  not  given  to
\nthem. Apart  from the  fact that  t here  is nothing  on the
\nrecord to  show even  this reasoning  for declining the said
\nclaim, we  find\t even  otherwise,  this\t submission  has  no
\nmerits. The  respondents  are  not  claiming  all  or  other
\nbenefits which\twere given  and to  be received in future to
\nthe teachers  but confining  their claim to the period when,
\nadmittedly,  they   were  teachers   and  all  the  teachers
\nirrespective of\t the fact  that they were taken by the State
\nGovernment or  with the\t Central Government  were given that
\nbenefit. If that be so, there could be no justifiable reason
\nto exclude that benefit to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  always possible  to exclude\t any class  based on
\nreasonable classification  to the  benefit under  any policy
\ndecision, the  classification having  direct nexus  with the
\nobject sought  to be  achieved. But  in the present case, in
\nthe absence  of any material placed, we do not find any such
\nso far\tthe respondents are concerned. Reading that would be
\narbitrary and  violative of  Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution.
\nIn the present case, we find that the Government has stoutly
\nsupported the  recommendations and  the same is said to have
\nbeen implemented  in the  Union Territories  and some of its
\ndepartments. There  is nothing to show that there were other
\ndepartments in which similar teachers were employed but such
\nbenefit was  not given.\t In fact, all the departments of the
\nCentral Government  could not have teachers. Nothing to show
\napart from  cases of  respondents that\tany other  class  of
\nteachers  in   the  Central   Government  departments\twere
\nexcluded. In  fact, on\tthe contrary,  we find the aforesaid
\nletter\tdated  12th  August,  1987  is\tfrom  the  Education
\nDepartment viz.\t the Human Resources Department which is the
\nparent department  under which\tall teachers  fall  and\t was
\nissued after concurrence of Department of Finance. Thus, the
\nstand of  the appellants  that they  were not  considered as
\ninstitution under  DDP itself  stood transferred  or for the
\nlack of\t either consideration  or lack of approval cannot be
\naccepted. This\tapart, we  find the  aforesaid letter  dated
\n12th August,  1987 in  its second  para while  approving the
\nsanction records it to the following :\n<\/p>\n
     “…………..all\t\t   Union
\n     Territories   (except   Chandigarh)
\n     including Government  aided schools
\n     and  organisations\t  like\tKendriya
\n     Vidyalaya\tSangathan  and\tCalcutta
\n     Tibetan Schools Administration etc.
\n     will be as under.”\n<\/p>\n
     The use  of words\t“organisations like”  and  the\tword
\n“etc.” indicate\t similar other\torganisations,\tinstitutions
\netc. the  same was not exhaustive. In consideration to this,
\nwe conclude  and include  t he\tteachers who were working in
\nDDP as\tthe respondents.  We further  conclude, if  for\t the
\naforesaid reasons,  their claims  were not  considered, this
\nnon-consideration of  their this  legitimate claim, when all
\nsuch belonging\tto that class received at the relevant date,
\nis  arbitrary\tand  violative\t of  Article   14<\/a>   of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  considered opinion\t respondents are entitled to
\nreceive the  benefit of\t the recommendation  of the National
\nPay Commission. We further conclude, in every case so far as
\nthe Central  Government is concerned, to give benefit of the
\nNational Pay  Commission to  its teachers from\t1st January,
\n1986, th e respondents are also entitled to receive the same
\nbenefit\t under it from the same date.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  aforesaid reasons\t and the  findings  recorded
\nherein before,\twe do  not find\t any merit in these appeals.
\nThese  appeals\t are  accordingly  dismissed.  Cost  on\t the
\nparties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998 Author: Misra Bench: M. Venkataswami, A.P. Misra PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI BIJOY LAL GHOSH AND OTHERS ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/03\/1998 BENCH: M. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-270411","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998 - 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-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-18T01:09:06+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=\"27 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-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-18T01:09:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998\"},\"wordCount\":5401,\"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-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-18T01:09:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998\"}]},{\"@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 And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998 - 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-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-18T01:09:06+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998","datePublished":"1998-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-18T01:09:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998"},"wordCount":5401,"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-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998","name":"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-18T01:09:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-shri-bijoy-lal-ghosh-and-others-etc-on-4-march-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Others vs Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh And Others Etc on 4 March, 1998"}]},{"@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\/270411","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=270411"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270411\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270411"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270411"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270411"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}