{"id":271350,"date":"2004-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004"},"modified":"2014-05-07T19:48:58","modified_gmt":"2014-05-07T14:18:58","slug":"the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 05\/04\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\n\nW.P.No.10796 of 2001\nand\nWMP No.15621 of 2001\n\nThe Union of India\nrep. by its Chief Commissioner\nof Income Tax,\n121, M-G. Road\nNungambakkam, Chennai 34.                       .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Central Administrative\n   Tribunal Madras Bench\n   rep. by its Registrar,\n   High Court Buildings, Chennai.\n2. Mrs.Mazharunissa                                     .. Respondents\n\n        This writ petition is filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of The  Constitution  of\nIndia  to  issue  a  writ  of  Certiorari  calling for the records of the 1 st\nrespondent relating to its proceedings in  O.A.1056\/99  dated  4.1.20  01  and\nquash the same.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.M.Veluswami\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar for R2\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(Order of the Court was made by V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.)<br \/>\n        Union  of India comes up by way of this writ petition, challenging the<br \/>\norder passed by the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  (CAT  hereinafter  for<br \/>\nshort),  whereby  the  Tribunal  has  practically awarded the promotion to the<br \/>\nsecond respondent with effect  from  1-12-1994.    The  direction  is  in  the<br \/>\nfollowing words:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">&#8220;In the light of our findings we hold that there are no adverse remarks in the<br \/>\nACR  of  the  applicant and the respondent is directed to consider the case of<br \/>\nthe applicant from the time when the applicant  was  due  for  promotion  i.e.<br \/>\nfrom 1.12.1994.  This exercise shall be completed within three months from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">A short factual background will not be out of place.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        2.  The second respondent started her service as UDC on 11.12.1975 and<br \/>\nwas promoted  as an Assistant in July, 1997.  However, before that, the second<br \/>\nrespondent suffered two adverse remarks, the first being in the  year  1990-91<br \/>\nand the   second  being  in  the  year  1991-92.    The  communication,  which<br \/>\ncommunicates the adverse remarks for the year 1991-92,  suggests  that  though<br \/>\nshe was graded as good, the following comments were made:<br \/>\n&#8220;Punctuality inadequate &#8211; She is a habitual latecomer.&#8221;<br \/>\nThis communication  is  dated  1.6.1992.   The previous communication is dated<br \/>\n10.10.1991, wherein also it has been mentioned that she was in  the  habit  of<br \/>\ngoing on leave very frequently and also attending the office late on all days.<br \/>\nThe second respondent did not do anything on this and kept quiet.  She was not<br \/>\npromoted  in  the  year 1994, when she should have been ordinarily promoted in<br \/>\nthe absence of any bad records.    Ultimately,  it  turns  out  that  she  was<br \/>\npromoted as  an  Assistant  in  July,  1997.    It  is then, that she made the<br \/>\nrepresentation to the authorities for expunging the remarks of two years.   On<br \/>\nrejection,  she approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.Nos.302 and 303 of 1999.<br \/>\nShe wanted the communication dated 28.12.1998 to  be  quashed,  by  which  her<br \/>\nrequest with regard to the expunging of the comments was rejected by the Chief<br \/>\nCommissioner of  Income-Tax.   Be that as it may, the Tribunal entertained the<br \/>\napplications and also noted the fact that at the time of hearing i.e.  in  the<br \/>\nyear 1999, she was already promoted in 1997 itself.  The Tribunal then, at the<br \/>\nadmission   stage   itself,   observed   that  the  applicant  should  make  a<br \/>\nrepresentation to the concerned Officers in the  Department  to  consider  her<br \/>\npromotion,  and  the  respondent  could  consider  her representation and take<br \/>\nproper decision regarding her promotion.  It  also  observed  that  she  could<br \/>\napproach the  Tribunal  after  seeking the legal advice.  As per the direction<br \/>\ngiven by the Tribunal, again the representations were considered and rejected,<br \/>\nwhereupon  she  approached  the  Tribunal  for  the  second  time  by  way  of<br \/>\nO.A.No.1056\/99.  In this O.A.  besides the other things, the second respondent<br \/>\nalso claimed  a  direction  for her being promoted with effect from 19 94.  As<br \/>\nhas already been stated earlier, the Tribunal has allowed this application and<br \/>\nissued a direction quoted above.  Hence, the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        3.  Mr.Veluswami, the learned Counsel for the Union  of  India,  urges<br \/>\nthat  firstly  the  Tribunal  could not have directed the promotion to be made<br \/>\nfrom 1.12.1994, because that  was  the  task  of  the  Departmental  Promotion<br \/>\nCommittee.    He   then,   pointed   out  that  the  Tribunal  has  completely<br \/>\nmisunderstood its earlier order, whereby the claim of  the  second  respondent<br \/>\nfor quashing  of  the  adverse  confidential  remarks was not entertained.  He<br \/>\npoints out that there was nothing in that order to suggest that  the  Tribunal<br \/>\neven  distantly  meant  that the remarks were uncalled for or were to be wiped<br \/>\nout.  All that the Tribunal had done in its earlier order was  to  direct  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent to make a fresh representation, particularly because it was<br \/>\npointed out by the second respondent that she was rated  as  a  good  Officer.<br \/>\nThe learned Counsel further says that once those remarks remained intact, even<br \/>\nafter the reconsideration of the representation sent by the second respondent,<br \/>\nthere was  no  question  of  there being any promotion by way of a right.  The<br \/>\nlearned Counsel urged that the promotion could not be  claimed  by  way  of  a<br \/>\nright,  as  the  promotion  could be given only on the basis of the assessment<br \/>\nmade by the Departmental Promotion Committee, and the  Departmental  Promotion<br \/>\nCommittee  had  clearly  found the second respondent to be unfit for promotion<br \/>\nupto the year 1994 and found her to be fit for  promotion  only  in  the  year<br \/>\n1997, when  the  promotion  was  actually  granted to her.  On this basis, the<br \/>\nlearned Counsel suggests that there was no point in issuing the  direction  by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal as it did.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        4.   As  against this, Mr.Giridhar, the learned Counsel for the second<br \/>\nrespondent, points out that once the second respondent was  rated  as  a  good<br \/>\nOfficer,  there  would  be  no  question  of  her  promotion  being  rejected.<br \/>\nMr.Giridhar very fairly agreed that the Tribunal could not  have  awarded  the<br \/>\npromotion  or  could  not  have  issued  a positive direction in favour of the<br \/>\nsecond respondent to promote her with effect from 1 994.  However, the learned<br \/>\nCounsel points out that in the wake of the remarks and  in  the  wake  of  the<br \/>\nearlier  observations  of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation, there<br \/>\nwas no question of the second respondent being deprived of the promotion  with<br \/>\neffect from 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        5.  On this basis, we will have to consider as to whether the Tribunal<br \/>\nwas justified.      There   could   be   no   dispute  that  this  was  not  a<br \/>\nselection-cum-seniority or selection by  merit  post.    This  post  would  be<br \/>\ncovered  by  non-selection method, for which there is a guideline via Clause 7<br \/>\nof guidelines and rules.  It suggests that in a non-selection post,  the  only<br \/>\nbasis for promotion would be the assessment made by the Departmental Promotion<br \/>\nCommittee,  wherein  the  Departmental  Promotion Committee would classify the<br \/>\nconcerned persons into two categories, which would be &#8216;fit&#8217; and &#8216;not yet fit&#8217;,<br \/>\nfor the purposes of promotion.  It is, then, seen from the said Clause 7  that<br \/>\nthe general guidelines provided in paragraph 6.1.4.  are also to be taken into<br \/>\naccount.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        6.  Accordingly, when we examine the records, we find that at no point<br \/>\nof  time,  even  the  Tribunal  wiped  out  or erased the adverse remarks made<br \/>\nagainst the second respondent.  It is true that the Tribunal  had  noted  that<br \/>\nthe second  respondent  was  branded as a good Officer.  However, it cannot be<br \/>\nignored that even then, the Tribunal did not hold that that branding as a good<br \/>\nOfficer wiped out the earlier adverse remarks, which were communicated to  the<br \/>\nsecond respondent  for the two years.  Mr.Giridhar also could not say and urge<br \/>\nthat the earlier adverse remarks were in any way erased from the record.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        7.  Now, once  this  position  is  patent  that  the  earlier  adverse<br \/>\nconfidential  remarks  remained  on  the  record,  then,  the  department  was<br \/>\nperfectly justified in relying  upon  them  and  holding  that  the  concerned<br \/>\nemployee,  the  second respondent herein, was unfit for being promoted, and it<br \/>\nhas actually come out with that stand in its counter.  We were  taken  through<br \/>\nthe counter  by  Mr.Veluswami.    In the counter, it is very clearly suggested<br \/>\nthat owing to the two adverse remarks, the second  respondent  was  considered<br \/>\nnot  to  be fit for promotion in the year 19 94, and she was actually found to<br \/>\nbe fit for promotion only with effect from 1997, and accordingly, she was also<br \/>\npromoted.  Once this position is clear, it is difficult to  uphold  the  order<br \/>\npassed by  the Tribunal now.  The Tribunal has misconstrued its earlier order.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal seems to be under the impression that in the earlier  order,  the<br \/>\neffect  of  the  adverse confidential remarks has been completely wiped out or<br \/>\nerased from the record, as the case may be.  The Tribunal probably  has  found<br \/>\nfault  with the petitioner for not properly understanding the earlier order of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal.  We do not think so.  The  order  has  not  only  been  properly<br \/>\nunderstood,  but  has  been  properly  acted  upon also, whereby the concerned<br \/>\nauthority has considered the representation sent  and  rejected  the  same  by<br \/>\ngiving adequate  reasons.    We  have  seen  that order also, and we are quite<br \/>\nsatisfied with the same.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        8.   The observation of the Tribunal &#8220;The respondent appears to be not<br \/>\nable to understand the point that has been given by this Tribunal with  regard<br \/>\nto  the  so called adverse remarks.&#8221; is not justified, because in spite of the<br \/>\nnoting that the second  respondent  was  branded  as  the  good  Officer,  the<br \/>\nTribunal  in  the  first order was desisted from allowing the application, and<br \/>\nmerely permitted  the  second  respondent  to  make  a  fresh  representation.<br \/>\nTherefore,  there  was  no question of the petitioner not properly reading the<br \/>\nearlier order of the Tribunal.  We are also not  agreeable  with  the  further<br \/>\nobservations  of the Tribunal that the adverse remarks have to be construed in<br \/>\nsuch a way that it should not affect  the  future  career  of  the  government<br \/>\nservant.  That  remark is really not called for.  In fact, the adverse remarks<br \/>\nare meant only for  assessing  the  Officer,  and  the  whole  career  of  the<br \/>\nconcerned government  employee depends upon the confidential remarks.  This is<br \/>\napart from the fact that the Tribunal has not chosen to go into  the  language<br \/>\nof  Clause  7,  which  controls the whole procedure to offer the promotions in<br \/>\nthis department.  Merely because the second respondent was termed  as  a  good<br \/>\nOfficer, by itself will not wipe out the adverse remarks, which have been made<br \/>\nagainst her  and  which were considered, reconsidered and re-reconsidered.  We<br \/>\ndo not think that there has been any  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner   in   understanding   the  earlier  order  of  the  Tribunal,  and<br \/>\nconsequently, we are of the clear opinion that the writ petition  deserves  to<br \/>\nbe allowed.  It is allowed.  The order of the Tribunal is set aside.  The O.A.<br \/>\nis directed  to be dismissed.  However, in the circumstances, there will be no<br \/>\norder as to the costs.  Consequently, connected WMP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">Index:  yes<br \/>\nInternet:  yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">1.  The Chief Commissioner<br \/>\nof Income Tax,<br \/>\n121, M-G.  Road<br \/>\nNungambakkam, Chennai 34.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">2.  The Central Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal Madras Bench<br \/>\nrep.  by its Registrar,<br \/>\nHigh Court Buildings, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05\/04\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM W.P.No.10796 of 2001 and WMP No.15621 of 2001 The Union of India rep. by its Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, [&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-271350","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004 - 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\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-07T14:18:58+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-07T14:18:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1712,\"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\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004\",\"name\":\"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-07T14:18:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004 - 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\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-07T14:18:58+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-07T14:18:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004"},"wordCount":1712,"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\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004","name":"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-07T14:18:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-union-of-india-vs-the-central-administrative-on-5-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Union Of India vs The Central Administrative on 5 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/271350","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=271350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271350\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}