{"id":271404,"date":"1973-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973"},"modified":"2016-03-03T01:13:07","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T19:43:07","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With … on 21 September, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With … on 21 September, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 834, 1973 SCR (2) 405<\/div>\n
Author: D Palekar<\/div>\n
Bench: Palekar, D.G.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.   R. ERRY & SOBHAG RAI MEHTA(With Connected Appeal)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/09\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nSHELAT, J.M.\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  834\t\t  1973 SCR  (2) 405\n 1973 SCC  (1) 120\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1974 SC  87\t (11)\n F\t    1976 SC 667\t (3,4,5)\n RF\t    1976 SC 676\t (12)\n R\t    1978 SC 803\t (30)\n R\t    1987 SC 943\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\nPunjab\t Pension  Rules-R.  6.4-Natural\t  justice-Government\nimposing cut in pension-Allegation of it-regularities  while\nin  Service-Requirement of reasonable opportunity  of  being\nheard.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRule  6.4 of the Punjab Pension Rules provides \"6.4 (a)\t The\nfull pension admissible under the rule is not to be given as\na matter of course, or unless the service rendered has\tbeen\nreally approved.\n(b)  If\t the service has not been  thoroughly  satisfactory,\nthe authority sanctioning the pension should make  reduction\nin the amount as it thinks proper.\nThe  respondents  were\temployed  in  the  service  of\t the\nappellant  State.  On their retirement the State  government\nimposed\t a cut in their pension and in the gratuity  amount.\nIt was alleged by the State government that the officers had\ncommitted  major irregularities and that the records of\t the\nofficers  showed  that\ttheir  career  were  not  altogether\nsatisfactory.\t Thereupon   the  respondents\tfiled\twrit\npetitions  in  the  High Court\tcontending  that  pensionary\nbenefit\t with  the  right  to  superannuation  pension\twere\nproperty  to which the officers by reason of  their  service\nwere entitled as a matter of right and therefore they  could\nnot be deprived of any part of that property without notices\nto  show cause why the cut should not be imposed.  The\tHigh\nCourt quashed the orders imposing the cut.  It held that the\nright  to superannuation pension was a right vested  in\t the\ngovernment  servant and before that right  is  prejudicially\naffected  he is entitled to a notice to show  cause  against\nthe  proposed  cut,  In\t the appeal to\tthis  Court  it\t was\nconceded on behalf of the St-ate government that in view  of\nthe  decisions\tof this Court in Deokinandan Prasad  v.\t The\nState  of  Bihar and Others<\/a> [1971] 2 S.C.C. 330\t it  was  no\nlonger open to contend that a pension was a bounty.  But  it\nwas  contended\tthat the order of the  State  government  in\napplying the cut was an administrative order under rule\t 6.4\nof the Pension Roles and therefore, the State government was\nnot  liable  to\t issue a notice to show\t cause\tagainst\t the\nproposed cut.  It was pointed out that the St-ate government\nhad  in\t its  possession the  confidential  records  of\t the\nofficers and on consideration of the same it was open to  it\nreduce the pens-ion in its discretion.\nDismissing the appeals,\nHELD:\t  The State government could not have applied a\t cut\nin  the\t pensions  of the officers  without  giving  them  a\nreasonable opportunity to make their defence.  Where a\tbody\nor  authority  is judicial or where it has. to\tdetermine  a\nmatter\tinvolving  rights judicially because of\t express  or\nimplied\t provisions  of principles of natural  justice\taudi\nalteram\t partem\t applies.   Where a  body  or  authority  is\ncharacteristically  administrative the principle of  natural\njustice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of that\nbody  or authority affects individual rights  or  interests,\nand  having regard to the particular situation it  would  be\nunfair\tfor  the  body or authority not to  have  allowed  a\nreasonable opportunity to be heard. [413C]\n406\nAdvani & Ors. [1950] S.C.R. 621 (725); Board of High  School\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Gupta and Ors. [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 36; State of Orissa v.
\nDr.  (Miss) Biapani Dei & Ors<\/a>., [1967] 2 S.C.R. 625; In\t re.
\nR.K.  (An Infant) [1967] 2 Q.B.D. 617; A. K. Kraipak &\tOrs.
\nv.  Union of India & Ors<\/a>. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 457 and Cooper  v.
\nWandsworth  Board of Works [1963] 14 C.D.N.S. 180,  referred
\nto.\n<\/p>\n
M.   Narasimachar  v.  The State of Mysore<\/a>, [1960] 1  S.C.R.
\n981, distinguished.\n<\/p>\n
&
\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1893- 1894
\nof 1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by  certificate from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nOctober\t 25, 1966 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh  in
\nCivil  Writs  Nos. 504 of 1964- and 723 of  1965  and  Civil
\nAppeal No. 735 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal by certificate from the order dated March 8. 1967  of
\nthe Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in L.P.A.\t No.
\n66 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
V.   C.\t Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the  appellant\t (in
\nall the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
Bhimsena Rao and S. Ramachandran, for the respondent (in
\nC.   A. No. 735\/68).\n<\/p>\n
B. R. Agrawala, for the respondent (in C. A. No. 1893\/67).
\nRespondent appeared in person (in C. A. No. 1894,\/67).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
\nPALEKAR, J.-These appeals raise, a common question of law as
\nto  whether the State Government is entitled to\t reduce\t the
\namount\tof  pension  and gratuity  legally  payable  to\t its
\nofficers on their superannuation without giving a reasonable
\nopportunity  to\t the  officers to  show\t cause\tagainst\t the
\nproposed reduction.\n<\/p>\n
In the first case the officer concerned is Shri K. R.  Erry.
\nHe  joined  the\t Punjab\t P.W.D.\t Irrigation  Branch  as\t  an
\nAssistant Engineer in 1926.  In due course he was posted  as
\na  Central  Designs  Officer and remained  attached  to\t the
\nCentral\t Designs  Office  first in the\tcapacity  of  Deputy
\nDirector  from\t6-11-1951  to  30-4-1952  and  then  as\t  an
\nExecutive Engineer (Designs) from 1-5-1952 to 1-11-1955.  He
\nwas  promoted  from P.S.E. Class II to P.S.E. Class  I\twith
\neffect\tfrom  22-9-1954 and was confirmed  as  an  Executive
\nEngineer with effect from 12-8-1956.  Early in 1958, he\t was
\npromoted  to  the  rank\t of  an\t officiating  Superintending
\nEngineer and was posted as Director of Central Designs.\t  In
\nNovember, 1958
\n407<\/span>
\nhe   retired   from   service  on  reaching   the   age\t  of
\nsuperannuation.\t  Shortly, thereafter he was reappointed  by
\nthe Government as a Professor and Head of the Department  of
\nCivil\tEngineering  in\t the  Punjab  Engineering   College,
\nChandigarh,  which  post he held for about 16  months.\t The
\nquestion  of his pension was taken up by the  Government  in
\nthe normal routine and on 29-7-1963, Government informed him
\nthat  though he was entitled to a superannuation pension  of
\nRs. 423.05 n.p. per month and death-cum-retirement  gratuity
\nof  Rs. 16,320\/- the Government was pleased to impose a\t cut
\nof 20% in the pension and Rs. 2,000\/- in the gratuity amount
\nunder Rule 6.4 of the Punjab, Civil Services Pension  Rules,
\nsince, in the opinion of the Government, the service  record
\nof  Shri Erry was not satisfactory.  It is an admitted\tfact
\nthat  before  this cut was applied Shri Erry  had  not\tbeen
\nfurnished  the grounds nor had he been given an\t opportunity
\nto show cause against the-proposed cut.\n<\/p>\n
The  second case also runs on parallel lines.\tThe  officer
\nconcerned  is Shri Sobhag Rai Mehta.  He joined\t the  Punjab
\nIrrigation  Department as a temporary Engineer in  1939\t and
\nwas  confirmed as Assistant Engineer in P.S.E. Class  II  in
\n1946.\tHe  was\t promoted  to  P.S.E.  Class  I\t and  as  an
\nofficiating Executive Engineer in 1949.\t After a few  months
\nhe  was reverted as S.DO. as he was declared unsuitable\t for
\nthe promotion by the Punjab Public Service Commission.\t Two
\nyears  thereafter  i.e.\t in 1951 he was\t again\tpromoted  as
\nOfficiating Executive Engineer and confirmed as an Executive
\nEngineer  with\teffect\tfrom 1-9-1956.\t Thereafter  he\t was
\npromoted  as  an Officiating  Superintending  Engineer\twith
\neffect from 12-3-1959 and earned a year’s increment.  On 12-
\n12-1960\t he  attained  the age of  superannuation.   As\t his
\npension\t papers\t were not finalized soon thereafter  he\t was
\nallowed to draw anticipatory pension in the sum of Rs. 190\/-
\nper  month and Rs. 6,158\/- as death-cum-retirement  gratuity
\npending final disposal of his case.  On 4-7-1964  Government
\ndecided that whereas the pension admissible to him under the
\nrules  was Rs. 211.35 n.p. per month along  with  death-cum-
\nretirement  gratuity  of  Rs. 8,211\/- it  was  necessary  to
\nimpose\ta  cut of 15% in his pension under rule\t 64  of\t the
\nPunjab\tCivil  Service\tRules,\tas in  the  opinion  of\t the
\nGovernment  the\t service  record  of  Shri  Mehta  was\t not
\nsatisfactory.  His pension was thus reduced from Rs.  211.35
\nn.p.  to  Rs. 179.60 per month.\t It is admitted\t that  while
\napplying the cut to the pension, no opportunity was given to
\nShri Mehta to show cause against the proposed cut.
\nIn  the third case the officer concerned was  Shri  Khaushal
\nSingh.\tHe was appointed as an Agriculture Assistant in\t the
\nPunjab\tGovernment  in 1926.  Thereafter, he worked  in\t the
\nDepartment of Agriculture in various capacities and  finally
\nin 1955 he was promoted to the post of District\t Agriculture
\nOfficer
\n408<\/span>
\nwhich  was  P.A.S. Class 11 post.  He was confirmed  in\t the
\npost  of the District Agriculture Officer with\teffect\tfrom
\n13-1-1958.   Shri Khaushal Singh also acted for sometime  as
\nthe Deputy Director of Agriculture before retirement on 10th
\nNovember, 1960 on reaching the age of superannuation.  After
\nhis retirement the Accountant General, Punjab calculated and
\ndeclared  that\the was entilled under the rules to  be\tpaid
\npension of Rs. 175.50 np. per month and death-cum-retirement
\ngratuity amounting to Rs. 5,589\/-.  But on 7-10-1963 he\t was
\ninformed  that his pension had been reduced from Rs.  175.50
\nto Rs. 160\/- per month and the amount of  death-cum-gratuity
\nof Rs. 5,589\/- had been forfeited by the Punjab\t Government.
\nIn  this case also it is admitted that Shri  Khaushal  Singh
\nhad not been given any notice to show cause ‘why his pension
\nshould\tnot  be\t reduced  or  death-cum-retirment   gratuity
\nforfeited.\n<\/p>\n
In  all these three cases the aggrieved officer\t filed\twrit
\npetitions  in the High Court of Punjab at  Chandigarh.\t The
\nprincipal contention was that pensionary benefits, with\t the
\nright  to  superannuation pension, which,  it  is  admitted,
\nincluded death-cum-retirement gratuity under the rules, were
\nproperty  to which the officers by reason of  their  service
\nwere  entitled\tas  a matter of right.\tThey  could  not  be
\ndeprived of any part of that property without notice to show
\ncause why the cut should not be imposed.\n<\/p>\n
The  contention on behalf of the State was  that  pensionary
\nbenefits  were in the nature of a bounty and under rule\t 6.4
\nclauses\t (a)  &\t (b)  of the  Punjab  Civil  Services  Rules
\n(Pension  Rules) it was open to the Government to  impose  a
\ncut, if in the opinion of the Government, the service record
\nof  the\t officers was not thoroughly satisfactory.   It\t was
\nalso  contended\t that  the order imposing  the\tcut  was  an
\nadministrative order and the Government was not,  therefore,
\nbound to give notice to the officers about the proposed cut.
\nThe  writ petitions of Shri Erry and Shri Mehta\t were  heard
\ntogether by a full bench of the High Court and were disposed
\nof by a common judgment on October 25, 1966.  The High Court
\nheld  by majority that the right to  superannuation  pension
\nwas a right vested in the Government servant and before that
\nright  is prejudicially affected he is entitled to a  notice
\nto  show  cause against the proposed cut.  In view  of\tthat
\nfinding the orders imposing the cut were quashed.
\nThe  Writ Petition filed by Shri Khaushal Singh came on\t for
\nhearing before a single Judge of the High Court on  December
\n22, 1966.  The learned Judge held that the case was  covered
\nby  the decision of the full bench in the, above  two  cases
\nand the only
\n409<\/span>
\norder  he  could pass was to quash the order  by  which\t the
\nState  Government had imposed the cut in his  pension.\t The
\nState of Punjab went in appeal to the Division Bench of that
\ncourt but, as was to be expected, that appeal was  dismissed
\nin limini on 8-3-1967.\n<\/p>\n
The present three appeals are filed by the State  Government
\nchallenging the view taken by the full bench.
\nMuch  of  the  argument\t which\twould  have  been  otherwise
\naddressed  to  us has been cut short by a decision  of\tthis
\nCourt  in  Deokinandan\tPrasad v. The  State  of  Bihar\t and
\nOthers<\/a>(1).   It\t was  a petition under\tArticle\t 32<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution by which the petitioner maintained that  denial
\nof  pension  was an infringement of his\t fundamental  rights
\nunder\tArticle\t  31(1)<\/a>\t and  Article  19(1)  (f)<\/a>   of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThis Court held that the right of a  Govern-
\nment  servant to receive pension is property  under  Article
\n31(1)<\/a>  and by a mere executive order the State did not\thave
\nthe  power to withhold the same.  It was also held that\t the
\nclaim to pension was property under Article 19(1)(f)<\/a> and was
\nnot saved by sub-Article 5<\/a> of Article 19.<\/a>  In coming to this
\ndecision  a  number of cases of the Punjab High\t Court\twere
\nreferred to and the view taken by that court in Shri  Erry’s
\ncase,  which is now in appeal before us’ was affirmed.\t Mr.
\nMahajan\t who  appeared\tbefore us on  behalf  of  the  State
\nconceded that in view of the decision in Deokinandan’s\tcase
\nit  was no longer open to him to contend that pension was  a
\nbounty.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Mahajan, however, contended that the order of the  State
\nGovernment  in applying the cut was an administrative  order
\nunder  rule  6.4 of the Pension Rules and,  therefore,\tthe,
\nState  Government was not liable to issue a notice  to\tshow
\ncause against the proposed cut.\t It was pointed out that the
\nState  Government  had in, its possession  the\tConfidential
\nrecords of the officers, and on a consideration of the\tsame
\nit  was open to it to reduce the pension in its\t discretion.
\nIt  was\t alleged  in the written statements  filed  in\tthe,
\npetitions  that\t their\tofficial careers  were\tnot  without
\nblemish, that there were ups and downs in their service\t and
\nall  these matters were considered by the  State  Government
\nbefore\tapplying  the  cut.   It  was  conceded\t that  these
\nofficers  earned promotions and increments in due course  of
\ntheir service but it was submitted that did not prevent\t the
\nState Government from applying the cut to the pension if, on
\na  consideration  of  the official career as  a\t whole,\t the
\nofficers were not entitled to unqualified approbation.
\nRule 6.4 of the Punjab Pension Rules is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “6. 4(a) The full pension admissible under the
\n\t      (1)   [1971] (2) S.C.C. 330.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      410<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      rule is not to be given as a matter of course,
\n\t      or unless the service rendered has been really
\n\t      approved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   If\tthe service has not been  thoroughly
\n\t      satisfactory,  the authority  sanctioning\t the
\n\t      pension  should  make such  reduction  in\t the
\n\t      amount as it thinks proper.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There are five notes appended to this rule.  But we are\t not
\nconcerned  with\t the  same  in\tdealing\t with  the   general
\nprinciple.\n<\/p>\n
Some indication was given in the written statements field on
\nbehalf of the State suggesting that the careers of the three
\nofficers  were not thoroughly satisfactory.  In the case  of
\nShri Erry it was alleged that he had prepared the design  of
\nthe  Ghaggar  Syphon and when the same\twas  constructed  in
\naccordance  with  the  design, a defect\t was  discovered  to
\nremedy which the Government had to spend an extra amount  of
\nrupees seven lakhs.  The State Government was of the opinion
\nthat the defect was in the design and not the  construction.
\nSo  far as this allegation is concerned Shri Erry has  given
\nan, answer.  According to him the design for the Syphon\t was
\nprepared  by him under the able supervision and guidance  of
\nhis  superiors viz.  Shri Handa who was the Chief  Engineer,
\nBhakra Canals and Shri R. K. Gupta, Chief Engineer, who held
\ncharge of the post of Director, Central Designs.  Both these
\nofficers  had signed the design in token of its\t correctness
\nand approval.  Shri Erry himself was not concerned with\t the
\nlater  construction  in\t accordance with  the  design.\t The
\nconstruction   was   entrusted\t to  Shri   A.\t G.   Kalha,
\nSuperintending Engineer, Bhakra Main Line and his allegation
\nwas that it was a constructional defect which caused loss to
\nthe Government and not the design.  The matter was  actually
\ninvestigated by a ‘Committee of Enquiry’ which consisted  of
\nthree  Chief Engineers presided over by Shri S. D.  Khunger,
\nI.S.E. General Manager, Bhakra Dam, and in the view of\tthat
\nCommittee  the\tdefect\twas not in the\tdesign\tbut  in\t the
\nconstruction.  That finding was questioned by Shri Kalha and
\nthereupon  the Government set up a  high-powered  Commission
\npresided over by Mr. Justice Dulat.  Mr. Justice Dulat held,
\ncontrary  to the finding of the Committee of  Enquiry,\tthat
\nthe  damage to the Ghaggar Syphon was due to  faulty  design
\nand  not due to faulty construction.  The complaint of\tShri
\nErry  is  that\tin  the\t enquiry  before  the\thigh-powered
\nCommission  of Mr. Justice Dulat he was not. even called  to
\nexplain\t how his design was right and the  construction\t was
\nwrong.\t Moreover, he contended it was wrong on the face  of
\nit to hold him responsible for the design when, in fact\t the
\ndesign\twas not the sole creation of Shri Erry but  also  of
\nthe two high officers Shri Handa and Shri Gupta who
\n411<\/span>
\n     had specifically examined and approved the design.\t  It
\nis the grievance of Shri Erry that while these two  officers
\nhad  retired  and had been given their full pension  it\t was
\nwrong  to blame Shri Erry for the defect, if  any.   Indeed,
\nthe  High  Court  could\t not  possibly\thave  undertaken  an
\ninvestigation  into the blameworthiness of Shri Erry in\t the
\nWrit  Petition.\t But it is obvious that the finding  of\t Mr.
\nJustice\t Dulat that there was a fault in the design and\t not
\nin the construction was a finding arrived at without  giving
\nan opportunity to the petitioner to explain. In other words.
\nif  the\t defect\t in the design of the Syphon  was  the\tsole
\nreason\tfor making a cut in the pension, Shri Erry would  be
\njustified  in his contention that Such a finding would\thave
\nbeen  appropriate only if his explanation had been  obtained
\nby Mr. Justice Dulat in the Course of the enquiry or by\t the
\nState Government before the cut was imposed.
\nSo far as  Shri Mehta is concerned the State Government also
\ngave  an  indication  indication in para  5  of\t its written
\nstatement  that Shri Mehta was involved\t  involved  ill Some
\nofficial irregularities and these had attracted the comments
\nof the Public Accounts Committee.  We do not know what\twere
\nthe  findings  and whether those findings were\tarrived\t  at
\nafter notice to Shri Mehta.\n<\/p>\n
So far the third officer namely Khaushal Singh is  concerned
\nGovernment  stated in para 4 of its written  statement\tthat
\nthe  State Government  had Suffered a loss of  Rs. 11,399.50
\np.  on account of irrecoverable\t  fertilizer loss  issued by
\nShri Khaushal Singh to bogus persons and also a further loss
\nof Rs. 12,770,\/- on account of irregularities\tcommitted by
\nthe petitioner in the purchase of seed in the year 1959.  It
\ndoes not appear that the State Government had instituted any
\nenquiry\t into  these losses with a view to  bring  home\t the
\nguilt to Shri Khaushal Singh.\n<\/p>\n
The  above allegations in respect of all the three  officers
\nconcerned  are undoubtedly serious.  But they have  remained
\nmere  allegations.   The officers could have  been  properly
\ncharged\t for  their delinquency.  This was not\tdone  either
\nwhen  they  were in service  or\t after\tthey  retired.\tWere
\nthese  matters taken into account, as the  State  Government
\nclaims\tto  have done before the imposition of the  cut,  it
\nwould  have beer) fair to have given an opportunity  to\t the
\nofficers to put forward their defence before depriving\tthem
\nof a large share in their pensionable benefits which.
\nas we have already seen, are not mere bounty but property to
\nwhich they were entitled.\n<\/p>\n
It  was also alleged by the State Government in the  written
\nstatements  that apart from the major defaults\treferred  to
\nabove.\tthe  records of all the three officers\tshowed\tthat
\ntheir careers were nor altogether satisfactory and here\t and
\nthere were draw
\n9–L498Sup.Cl\/73
\n412<\/span>
\nthat  he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar  for  a
\nyear  in  1953\tand in the case of Shri Mehta  he  had\tbeen
\nsuperseded by his juniors on a number of occasions.  At\t the
\nsame  time it cannot be ignored that in spite of some  small
\nset backs here and there in their long official career these
\nofficers  earned  promotions and were selected on  merit  to
\nfill  high  offices.   Shri Erry  started  as  an  Assistant
\nEngineer in Class It service and in due course was  promoted
\nas Executive Engineer in Class I service.  At the end of his
\ncareer\tlie was appointed as a Superintending Engineer,\t the
\npost being a selection post.  Similar is the case with\tShri
\nMehta.\tThe latter has pointed out that as early as 6-4-1951
\nGovernment had framed rules for the preparation of a ranking
\nlist  in respect of the selection posts and under the  rules
\nno  person could get a selection post unless he was fit\t and
\nhis  record of service was satisfactory.  He contended\tthat
\nthe   very   fact  that\t he  got  the  selection   post\t  of
\nSuperintending Engineer on 11-3-1959 showed that he was\t fit
\nand his record of service was satisfactory.
\nShri  Khaushal\tSingh started his career as  an\t Agriculture
\nAssistant  in  1927  in class III Service and  in  1955\t was
\npromoted  to  a\t class 11 post and  appointed  the  District
\nAgriculture Officer. He was confirmed in that post and\talso
\nofficiated   for   sometime  as\t the  Deputy   Director\t  of
\nAgriculture.  When the career of an officer is assessed as a
\nwhole the fact that an officer, though with some impediments
\nin  his long career, has obtained Successive  promotions  to
\nhigher\tand  yet higher posts may well\traise  the  question
\nwhether\t the State Government, at the time of  granting\t him
\npension which is normally determined by the years of service
\nand the last pay he receives at the end of his career, would
\nbe entitled to forfeit rights acquired by length of  service
\non  the ground that faults, which, at the time, were  either
\noverlooked or condoned had now become so rave as to justify
\npunishing him by inflicting a severe cut in the pension.  It
\nis not necessary for us to deal with this point here  except
\nto suggest that this aspect of the case could well have been
\nurged  by the officers before the Government if\t notice\t had
\nbeen  issued to them to show cause against the proposed\t cut
\nand the State Government would have had necessarily to apply
\nits mind to that question.\n<\/p>\n
In  short it must be conceded that though the State  Govern-
\nment  may  have had some material before it for\t imposing  a
\npenalty by way of a cut in the pension it had failed to give
\na  reasonable  opportunity to the officers  to\tput  forward
\ntheir  defence\tor facts in extenuation before the  cut\t was
\nimposed.   The case of Ridge v. Baldwin(1) comes to mind  in
\nthis connection.  Baldwin who was the Chief Constable of the
\nborough police force was prose-\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1964] A.C. 40.\n<\/p>\n
413<\/span><\/p>\n
cuted  on grave charges.  Donovan J, the trial\tJudge  made,
\nwhile  acquitting  him, some observations  about  his  moral
\nincompetence  to  afford  leadership to\t the  police  force.
\nActing on this severe criticism by a Judge of the High Court
\nthe  Watch  Committee. entitled under Section  191.  of\t the
\nMunicipal  Corporations Act 1882 to dismiss him on a  charge
\nof  unfitness, dismissed him from service.   This  dismissal
\npractically  at\t the  end of his  official  career  had\t the
\nconsequence  of depriving him of his pension.  The House  of
\nLords  held  that  the order had to  be\t set  aside  because
\nBaldwin\t was not afforded an opportunity to defend  himself,
\nthough\t the  statute  itself  did  not\t require  any\tsuch
\nopportunity being given.\n<\/p>\n
The question for our consideration now is whether the orders
\nimposing  a cut in the pension should be set aside  for\t the
\nreason\t that  the  officers  were  not\t  given\t  reasonable
\nopportunity  to show cause.  The law on the point is not  in
\ndoubt.\t Where a body or authority is judicial or  where  it
\nhas  to\t determine  a  matter  involving  rights  judicially
\nbecause\t of express or implied provision, the  principle  of
\nnatural justice audi ailteram partem applies.  See  Province
\nof  Bombay  v. Kusaldas S. Advani & others<\/a>(1) and  Board  of
\nHigh  School  & Intermediate Education,\t U.P.  Allahabad  v.
\nGhanshyam Das Gupta and others<\/a> (2).  With the  proliferation
\nof  administrative decisions in the welfare State it is\t now
\nfurther\t recognised  by courts both in En-land and  in\tthis
\ncountry, (especially after the decision of House of Lords in
\nRidge\tv.  Baldwi  that  where\t a  body  or  authority\t  is
\ncharacteristically  administrative the principle of  natural
\njustice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of that
\nbody  or authority affects individual rights  of  interests.
\nand  having regard to the particular situation it  would  be
\nunfair\tfor  the  body or authority not to  have  allowed  a
\nreasonable  opportunity to be heard.  See : State of  Orissa
\nv.  Dr.\t Binapani  Dei\t&  Ors<\/a>.(3)  and\t In  re\t H.  K.\t [An
\nInfant(4)].  In the former case it was observed it page\t 628
\nas follows
\n\t      “An  order by the State to the prejudice of  a
\n\t      person in derogation of his vested rights\t may
\n\t      be  made\tonly in accordance  with  the  basic
\n\t      rules of justice and fair play.  The  deciding
\n\t      authority. it is true, is not in the  position
\n\t      of  a  Judge called upon to decide  an  action
\n\t      between\tcontesting   parties,\tand   strict
\n\t      compliance   with\t  the  forms   of   judicial
\n\t      procedure\t may  not be insisted upon.   He  is
\n\t      however  under  a\t duty  to  give\t the  person
\n\t      against\twhom   ‘in  enquiry   is   held\t  an
\n\t      opportunity  to set up his version or  defence
\n\t      and an opportunity to correct or to controvert
\n\t      any   evidence  in  the  possession   of\t the
\n\t      authority
\n\t      (1) [1950] S.C.R. 621 (725)
\n\t      (2)   [1962] Sup. (3) S.C.R. 3.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)   [1967] (2) S.C.R. 625.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (4)  [1967] 2 Q.B.D. 617.<\/p>\n
\t      414<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      which  is\t sought\t to be relied  upon  to\t his
\n\t      prejudice.    For\t that  purpose\tthe   person
\n\t      against  whom  an\t enquiry  is  held  must  be
\n\t      informed of the case he is called upon to meet
\n\t      and the evidence in support thereof.  The rule
\n\t      that  a party to whose prejudice an  order  is
\n\t      intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing
\n\t      applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies
\n\t      of   persons   invested  with   authority\t  to
\n\t      adjudicate upon matters involving civil conse-
\n\t      quences.\t It is one of the fundamental  rules
\n\t      of  Our  Constitutional  set  up\tthat  ever),
\n\t      citizen  is  protected  against  exercise\t  of
\n\t      arbitrary\t authority  by\tthe  State  or\t its
\n\t      officers.\t   Duty\t to  act  judicially   would
\n\t      therefore\t arise from the very nature  of\t the
\n\t      function\tintended  to be performed;  it\tneed
\n\t      not  be shown to be super-added.\tIf there  is
\n\t      power to decide and determine to the prejudice
\n\t      of  a  person,  duty  to\tact  judicially\t  is
\n\t      implicit\tin the exercise of such\t power.\t  If
\n\t      the  essentials of justice be ignored  and  an
\n\t      order to the prejudice of a person is made the
\n\t      order is\tnullity.  That is a basic concept of
\n\t      the   rule  of  law  and\timportance   thereof
\n\t      transcends  the significance of a decision  in
\n\t      any particular case.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      These observations were made with reference to
\n\t      an  authority  which  could  be  described  as
\n\t      characteristically administrative. page 630 it
\n\t      was observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “It is true that the order is  administrative
\n\t      in character, but even an administrative order
\n\t      which  involves civil consequences as  already
\n\t      stated,  must  be made consistently  with\t the
\n\t      rules  of natural justice after informing\t the
\n\t      first respondent of the case of the State, the
\n\t      evidence\tin support thereof and after  giving
\n\t      an  opportunity  to the  first  respondent  of
\n\t      being  heard  and meeting\t Or  explaining\t the
\n\t      evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
This case And the English case in re H. K. (An Infant)\twere
\nspecifically referred to with approval in a decision of\t the
\nconstitution  bench of this Court in A. K. Kraipak  &  Ors..
\netc. v. Union of India & Ors(1).\n<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, clear that the State in the case of  these
\nthree  officers could not have applied a cut in the  pension
\nof the officers without giving them a reasonable opportunity
\nto make their defense. The rule which declares that even  an
\nadministrative\tauthority has to act fairly after giving  an
\nopportunity to the person rights and interests are  affected
\nby  its decision is no more than an extension of  the  well-
\nknown  rule  which courts in England had recognised  in\t the
\n19th century.  In Cooper v. Wandsworth
\n(1)  [1970] 1 S.C.R. 457.\n<\/p>\n
415<\/span><\/p>\n
Board  of  Works(1) the Board, which had, under the  Act  of
\n1855, the authority to demolish any building constructed  if
\nthe owner thereof had failed to give proper notice, was held
\nbound to give the owner an opportunity of being heard before
\nthe  demolition, It was contended in that case by the  Board
\nthat their discretion to order demolition was not a judicial
\ndiscretion.  But the court decided unanimously in favour  of
\nthe owner.  Erle C. J. held that the power was subject to  a
\nqualification  repeatedly recognised that no mean is  to  be
\ndeprived  of his property without his having an\t opportunity
\nof  being  heard. and that this had been  applied  “to\tmany
\nexercises  of power which in common understanding would\t not
\nbe  at all a more judicial proceeding than would be the\t act
\nof  the\t district  board in ordering a house  to  be  pulled
\ndown.” Wills.  J. observed: “that the rule was of  universal
\napplication,  and  founded upon the plainest  principles  of
\njustice.”  In  the  case before us the\tofficers  are  being
\ndeprived of part of their property by applying a cut to\t the
\npension.  Therefore, it was quite essential in all  fairness
\nand  elementary\t justice that they should  have\t been  given
\nreasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed
\naction.\n<\/p>\n
Reference was made on behalf of the State to M. Narasimha v.
\nThe  State  of\tMysore(2)  and\tparticularly  the  following
\nobservations at page 889.  “Next the appellant contends that
\nas  his\t pension  has been reduced  to\ttwo-thirds,  he\t was
\nentitled to notice in view of the provisions of Art.  311(2)<\/a>
\nof  the\t Constitution,\tbefore\tthe  Government\t decided  to
\ninflict that punishment on him and that this was not done in
\nthe notice dated December 30, 1954.\tIt is enough to\t say
\nthat this contention is also baseless. Article\t  311\t (2)<\/a>
\ndoes not deal with the question of pension at all; it  deals
\nwith  three situations, namely (i) dismissal, (ii)  removal,
\nand  (iii) reduction in rank.  The appellant says  that\t the
\nreduction  in  pension is equivalent to reduction  in  rank.
\nAll that we need say is that reduction in rank applies to  a
\ncase of a public servant who is expected to serve after\t the
\nreduction.  It has ‘nothing to do with reduction of pension,
\nwhich  is  specifically\t provided for in  Art.\t302<\/a>  of\t the
\nRegulations.  That article says that if the service has\t not
\nbeen  thoroughly satisfactory the authority sanctioning\t the
\npension\t should\t make  such reduction in the  amount  as  it
\nthinks\tproper.\t There is a Note under this  article,  which
\nsays that ‘,he full pension admissible under the Regulations
\nis  not to be given as a matter of course but rather  to  be
\ntreated\t as  a\tmatter of distinction.\tIt  was\t under\tthis
\narticle\t that  the  Government acted  when  it\treduced\t the
\npension to two-thirds. Reduction in person being a matter of
\ndiscretion with the Government, it carrier therefore be said
\nthat it committed any breach of the Result
\n(1) [1863] 14 C,13,N.S,. 180.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1960] 1 S.C.R.\n<\/p>\n
416<\/span><\/p>\n
in  reducing  the  pension  of\tthe  appellant.”  Particular
\nreference was made to the last two or three sentences in the
\nabove  observations  for  the  contention  that\t payment  of
\npension was a matter of discretion with the Government.\t  It
\nis enough to say that the question did not arise in the case
\nas  to whether pension is bounty or property. In  that\tcase
\nthe  appellant M. Narasimhachar had been charged in  respect
\nof seven irregularities committed by him when he held  the
\npost.\tAn  enquiry was held and six of\t the  irregularities
\nwere found proved. A final notice was served on him  to show
\ncause why he should not be compulsorily retired and 50 %  of
\nhis  pension should not be adjusted towards the amount\tclue
\nfrom him on account of the shortage caused by the  irregula-
\nrities.\t He did not show cause.\t In the meantime he  reached
\nthe age of superannuation and the Government passed an order
\ndirecting  that he be retired from service from the date  on
\nwhich had reached superannuation and given a reduced  pinion
\nof  two-thirds to which he would be ordinarily\tentitled  in
\nview  of  the irregularities committed by him.\tOne  of\t his
\ncontentions was that Article 311(2)<\/a> applied to his case and,
\ntherefore,  lie was entitled to a notice before his  pension
\nwas  reduced  to two-thirds.  To that the  answer  was\tthat
\nArticle\t 311(2)<\/a> did not apply to him and. under Article\t 302<\/a>
\nof the Regulations his pension was liable to be reduced\t Lit
\nGovernment’s  discretion.   He had known  what\tthe  charges
\nthere  against\thim and what punishment was proposed  to  be
\ninflicted upon him.  Therefore, lie was not in a position to
\ncome that his pension was reduced without notice to him.
\nIn  the\t result we hold that the three writ  petitions\twere
\ncorrectly  decided  by the High Court and the  appeals\tmust
\nfail.  They are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
K. B. N.\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n417<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With … on 21 September, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 834, 1973 SCR (2) 405 Author: D Palekar Bench: Palekar, D.G. PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: K. R. ERRY & SOBHAG RAI MEHTA(With Connected Appeal) DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/09\/1973 BENCH: PALEKAR, […]<\/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-271404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With ... on 21 September, 1973 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With ... on 21 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T19:43:07+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\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With … on 21 September, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T19:43:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973\"},\"wordCount\":4919,\"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\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With ... on 21 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T19:43:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With … on 21 September, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With ... on 21 September, 1973 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With ... on 21 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T19:43:07+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\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With … on 21 September, 1973","datePublished":"1973-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T19:43:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973"},"wordCount":4919,"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\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973","name":"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With ... on 21 September, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T19:43:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-k-r-erry-sobhag-rai-mehtawith-on-21-september-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs K. R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta(With … on 21 September, 1973"}]},{"@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\/271404","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=271404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}