{"id":31482,"date":"1977-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977"},"modified":"2017-06-21T12:11:17","modified_gmt":"2017-06-21T06:41:17","slug":"krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977","title":{"rendered":"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1233, \t\t 1977 SCR (2) 956<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKRISHAN MURARI LAL SEHGAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nSHINGAL, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 1233\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 956\n 1977 SCC  (2) 587\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1985 SC1272\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Constitution  of India--Article 311(1), dismissal  by  a\n\tperson subordinate to appointing authority--States Reorgani-\n\tsation\tAct, 1956--Sec. 115 (7), 116( 1 )  --Varying  condi-\n\ttions  of service of an allocated Government servant to\t his\n\tdisadvantage--Effect of reorganisation--Different  authority\n\tin  state  before and after reorganisation--Patiala  &\tEast\n\tPunjab\tStates Union Civil Services (Punishment\t &  Appeals)\n\tRules,\t1953--Pepsu General Clauses Act--Sec. 2(41)--Meaning\n\tof State Government--Punjab Financial Commissioner's  Office\n\t(Slate\tService Class III) Rules,  1957--Central  Government\n\tCircular dated 11-5-1957 issued under States  Reorganisation\n\tAct. 1956.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    The\t appellant was appointed as a clerk in\tthe  Patiala\n\tState in 1948.\tOn the formation of the new State of  Punjab\n\tin 1956, the appellant was integrated in the service of\t the\n\tnew  State of Punjab as permanent Assistant.  The  appellant\n\toverstayed  leave and. therefore, after holding\t an  enquiry\n\tthe Financial Commissioner. Punjab dismissed him from  serv-\n\tice in October, 1959.  Appellant filed two suits, one for  a\n\tdeclaration  that his dismissal order was void\tand  illegal\n\tsecond for arrears of salary on the basis that the dismissal\n\twas  illegal. The trial Court decreed both the\tsuits.\t The\n\tHigh Court in appeal reversed the decrees of the trial Court\n\tand dismissed the suits.\n\t    In\tthe appeals by certificate the\tappellant  contended\n\tthat the appellant was confirmed in the State of Patiala  by\n\tthe order of the Raj Pramukh.  Before its integration he was\n\tgoverned  by the Patiala and East Punjab States Union  Civil\n\tServices (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1953 which were\tmade\n\tin  exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Art.  309  of\n\tthe Constitution.  By  a notification of the Punjab  Govern-\n\tment dated 9-2-1957 the said 1953 Rules were made applicable\n\tto  the corresponding services from 1st November,  1956\t on-\n\twards till further orders in the new State of Punjab.  Under\n\tthe  1953  Rules, the State Government was  the\t appropriate\n\tauthority for dismissing members of Class Iii and IV.  Under\n\tsection 2(46) of the Pepsu General Clauses Act, 1953.  State\n\tGovernment means the Rat Pramukh.  The appellant, therefore,\n\tcontended  that\t he cannot be removed from  service  by\t any\n\tauthority  subordinate to the Governor of Punjab  and  since\n\tthe  Financial Commissioner is an authority  subordinate  to\n\tthe  Governor.\the was not competent to pass  the  order  of\n\tdismissal.\n\t    The\t respondent contended that the appointing  authority\n\tfor the post held by the appellant in the State of Punjab is\n\tthe Financial Commissioner  and, therefore. he is the appro-\n\tpriate authority under s. 116(1 ) of the States\t Reorganisa-\n\ttion Act, 1956\tto impose the penalty of dismissal.  Second-\n\tly, in\tthe present case the Punjab Financial Commissioner's\n\tOffice\t(State\tServices  Class\t III)  Rules.  1957,  apply.\n\tAlthough  the  said rules are more  disadvantageous  to\t the\n\tappellant  since  they\thave received the  approval  of\t the\n\tCentral Government by the General Circular dated  11-5-1957,\n\tthe appellant was rightly dismissed by the Financial Commis-\n\tsioner.\n\tAllowing the appeals.\n\t    HELD: 1. Section 116(1) merely provides that the  appel-\n\tlant  shall continue to hold the same post in the new  State\n\tof Punjab and shall be deemed to have been duly appointed to\n\tsuch post by the Government of Punjab.\tThe fact that in the\n\tnew  State  .of\t Punjab the Financial  Commissioner  is\t the\n\tappropriate authority for appointing Assistants is absolute-\n\tly irrelevant.\tUnder s. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation\n\tAct the conditions of service applicable to\n\t 957\n\ta civil servant immediately before the appointed day  cannot\n\tbe  varied  to\this disadvantage except\t with  the  previous\n\tapproval of the Central Government. One of the condition  of\n\tservice of the appellant on the appointed day was that since\n\the  was appointed by the State Government of Pepsu he  could\n\tonly be dismissed by the State Government of Pepsu if he had\n\tcontinued there.\n\t\t\t      [961 H, 962 A]\n\t    2.\tThe Memorandum of 11-5-1957 cannot be called in\t aid\n\tas  previous approval because the Punjab  Financial  Commis-\n\tsioner's  Office  Rules 1957 were promulgated  on  28-2-1957\n\tbefore the Circular dated 11-5-1957 was issued. No  approval\n\tof  the Central Government has been  produced.\t  Therefore,\n\tauthority  subordinate\tto the Governor of  Punjab  was\t not\n\tcompetent  to pass an order of dismissed of  the  appellant.\n\t[962 D-E]\n\t    The Court set aside the judgment and decrees of the High\n\tCourt and restored those of the trial Court. [963 E]\n\tTakhatray  Shivdatray Mankad v. State of Gujarat<\/a> [1970]\t (1)\n\tSCR  244 and Bholanath J. Thaker v. The State of  Saurashtra\n\tAIR<\/a> 1954 SC 680, followed.\n\tN.  Raghavendra\t Rao v. Deputy Commissioner,  South  Kamara,\n\tMangalore<\/a> [1964] (7) SCR 549 and Mohammad Shujat Ali &\tOrs.\n\tetc.  v.  Union\t of India & Ors. etc. [1975]  (1)  SCR\t449,\n\tdistinguished.\n\tRajvi Amar Singh v. The State of Rajasthan,<\/a> [1958] SCR 1013,\n\tdistinguished.\n\t    Mysore  State  and Road Transport  Corporation  etc.  v.\n\tMirja Khasim Ali Beg & Anr. C. As. Nos. 1601-1609 and  2402-\n\t2405 of 1968 dt. 1-12-1976 followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1298 and
\n\t1299 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Appeal  from the Judgment and Decree dated the  9th\t Au-
\n\tgust,  1966 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in  Regular
\n\tFirst Appeals Nos. 134 and 120 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
\tN.H. Hingorani for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tO.P. Sharma for Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered
\n\t    GOSWAMI,  J.–These\t appeals are by certificate  of\t the
\n\tHigh  Court of Punjab and Haryana. Civil Appeal No. 1299  of
\n\t1969 is concerned with the appellant’s suit for\t declaration
\n\tof  his dismissal order dated October 21, 1959, as void\t and
\n\tillegal.    Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 1969 arises out of\t his
\n\tsuit  for arrears of salary.   Both the matters\t were  heard
\n\ttogether  in the. High Court and the judgment out  of  which
\n\tCivil Appeal No. 1299 of 1969 arises is the principal  judg-
\n\tment  following which a short order was passed by  the\tHigh
\n\tCourt dismissing the other suit of the appellant for arrears
\n\tof salary.   The High Court granted certificates in both the
\n\tappeals.    It will be sufficient to deal with Civil  Appeal
\n\tNo.  1299 of 1969 in this judgment as the  decision  therein
\n\twill govern the other appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts may now be briefly stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t appellant who was the plaintiff in the court  below
\n\twas  appointed as a Clerk in the Patiala State some time  in
\n\tJuly  1948.  On the formation of the new State of Punjab  on
\n\tNovember 1, 1956, with the
\n\t958<\/span>
\n\tmerger\tof the erstwhile Pepsu and Punjab States the  appel-
\n\tlant  was  integrated  in the service of the  new  State  of
\n\tPunjab\tas    permanent\t Assistant in  the   grade  of\t Rs.
\n\t150–10—300\/- and was\t actually getting Rs.\/70\/- per month
\n\ton  October  21,  1959, the date of  his  dismissal  in\t the
\n\toffice of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab.
\n\t    The appellant instituted a suit in March 1962  challeng-
\n\ting   his order of dismissal dated October 21, 1959, as void
\n\tand  unconstitutional  praying\tfor a  declaration  that  he
\n\tcontinued  to be in service of the Punjab State.    In\tJune
\n\t1962  he  instituted a second suit   as\t pauper\t claiming  a
\n\tdecree\tfor about Rs. 8,689\/- as arrears of his’ salary\t and
\n\tallowances  and also a further decree for Rs.  278\/12\/-\t per
\n\tmensem\tfrom 5.6.1962 to 4.7.1962 and Rs. 290\/-\t per  mensem
\n\tfrom 5.7.1962 upto the date of the decree.   Both the  suits
\n\twere decreed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
\t    According  to the plaint, the appellant, due to  serious
\n\tillness\t of  his mother, proceeded from Simla where  he\t was
\n\tworking to Patiala  on casual leave on 8th July, 1958,\twith
\n\tthe.  sanction\tof the competent  authority.\tHe  obtained
\n\textension of leave on account of illness of his mother, wife
\n\tand  daughter.\t  Meanwhile  the  appellant  himself  became
\n\tseriously  iII\tand  prayed  for  leave\t from  1.11.1958  to
\n\t28.2.1959  0n the basis of a medical certificate granted  by
\n\tDr. Inder Singh Sodhi,, Retired Civil Surgeon, Pepsu, Patia-
\n\tla.   The authorities declined\tto sanction the leave.\t The
\n\tappellant also. continued to be seriously ill and was unable
\n\tto  attend his duties.\t When he. recovered he reported\t for
\n\tduty  at  Simla\t on March 2, 1959 and he  was  permitted  to
\n\tresume\this  duty on furnishing. a  certificate\t of  fitness
\n\tgranted by the aforesaid Retired Civil Surgeon.
\n\t    On\tJanuary\t 27, 1959, the appellant was served  with  a
\n\tchargesheet  by\t the  Financial\t Commissioner  (Development)
\n\tPunjab\tasking\t  him  to show cause why he  should  not  be
\n\tdismissed  from\t Government service for his  wilful  absence
\n\tfrom duty after the expiry of the earned leave sanctioned to
\n\thim upto October 31, 1958, which was described as  “misbeha-
\n\tviour”.\t The chargesheet, inter alia, stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“(1)   ……\tYou  deliberately  deed\t the
\n\t\t      orders  and  again applied  for  extension  of
\n\t\t      leave  upto the 31st December,  1958  reigning
\n\t\t      yourself\tto be iII, and also threatened\tthat
\n\t\t      in  case leave was not allowed, you  might  be
\n\t\t      granted\t interview    with    the    Revenue
\n\t\t      Minister\t….  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      X\t\t\t    X\t\t\t   X\n\t\t      X\n\t\t\t    (2)\t That on the one hand you have\tbeen\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      applying\tfor grant of extension of  leave  on
\n\t\t      account of your own illness and on the  other,
\n\t\t      you have requested  that\tyou  may  be allowed
\n\t\t      to  appear in B.A. Examination to be  held  in
\n\t\t      April, 1959.  This, therefore,  clearly  shows
\n\t\t      that  you are not actually ill but are  malin-
\n\t\t      gering,  and have knowingly defied  Government
\n\t\t      orders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      959<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t     (3) That your wilful absence from\tduty
\n\t\t      after  the expiry\t of earned leave  sanctioned
\n\t\t      to  you\tupto the  31st October, 1958,  is  a
\n\t\t      misbehaviour”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tThe appellant submitted his explanation on  March 11,  1959.
\n\tThere was an enquiry by the Deputy  Secretary  (Development)
\n\tin May 1959.  He was served with a second show cause  notice
\n\ton  August  14, 1959, enclosing the report  of\tthe  Enquiry
\n\tOfficer.  The appellant submitted his representation to. the
\n\tsaid  notice  on October 6, 1959. On October 21,  1959,\t the
\n\tFinancial  Commissioner (Revenue) passed the order  of\tdis-
\n\tmissal.\t  As  already stated, two suits were  filed  by\t the
\n\tappellant  in 1962.  The Subordinate  Judge,  First   Class,
\n\tPatiala,  decreed both the suits on January 15,\t 1963.\t The
\n\tState Government appealed to the High Court and the same was
\n\tallowed on August 9, 1966 and both the suits were dismissed.
\n\tThat is how these appeals came before us on certificates.\n<\/p>\n
\t     We\t are concerned in these appeals with only one  point
\n\twhich,\tif it is held in favour of the appellant, will\tcon-
\n\tclude  the matter and it will not be necessary to deal\twith
\n\tthe  other questions with reference to the  illegalities  in
\n\tthe course of the departmental enquiry alleged by the appel-
\n\tlant.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It\tis  submitted on behalf of the appellant   that\t the
\n\torder  of  dismissal is invalid on account of  violation  of
\n\tArticle\t  311(1)  of the Constitution.\tThe following  facts
\n\tare  relied  upon by the appellant in order to\tsustain\t his
\n\tsubmission.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It\tis  admitted by the respondent\tthat  the  appellant
\n\tinitially joined service in the State of Patiala in 1948  as
\n\ta  Clerk and he was confirmed as an Assistant in  the  Pepsu
\n\tCivil Secretariat by an order dated October 31, 1956, of His
\n\tHighness  the Rajpramukh, which is the previous day  of\t the
\n\t‘appointed  day’ under the State Reorganisation\t Act,  1956.
\n\tThus  he  was integrated in the new  State of Punjab   as  a
\n\tconfirmed  Assistant.  Before his integration in  Punjab  he
\n\twas  governed by  the Patiala and East Punjab  States  Union
\n\tCivil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1953  (briefly
\n\tthe  Pepsu Rules) which were made in exercise of the  powers
\n\tconferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
\n\tBy  a  Notification  of the Punjab  Government\tNo.  976GII-
\n\t87\/2499, dated February 9, 1957, these Pepsu Rules  continue
\n\tto apply as from 1st November,\t1956, to the   corresponding
\n\tservices,  posts  and personnel of the new State  of  Punjab
\n\ttill further  orders. Rule 6 of the Pepsu Rules provides  as
\n\tfollows :–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “6.\t      Authority\t     to\t      impose
\n\t\t      punishment.–Subject  to\tthe  provisions\t  of
\n\t\t      clause (1) of Article  311 of the Constitution
\n\t\t      of India, the authorities competent to  impose
\n\t\t      any of the penalties specified in rule 4\tupon
\n\t\t      the  persons  to whom these rules apply, shall
\n\t\t      be  such\tas may be prescribed. by  Government
\n\t\t      in the rules  regulating\tthe  appointment and
\n\t\t      conditions of service of such persons”.\n<\/p>\n
\tDismissal  is  one of the penalties provided  under  rule  4
\n\t(see  rule  4 (vii).  As provided under Rule  6\t above\tmen-
\n\ttioned, the Rajpramukh
\n\t960<\/span>
\n\tunder  Article 309 of the Constitution by a notification  in
\n\tthe Pepsu Gazette of Juno 27, 1954, made  appropriate  rules
\n\ton  14th  June, 1954, determining the authorities  competent
\n\tto  impose   penalties on members of  certain  services\t and
\n\tholders\t of certain posts in connection with the affairs  of
\n\tthe  State.   Item No.\t14 in the  Schedule to\tthese  rules
\n\tmentions  “Members of Class III and IV Services\t in  Sectt.”
\n\tand. the punishing authority for dismissal of such employees
\n\tis  the\t  State Government.  It is,  therefore,\t clear\tthat
\n\tunder  the  Pepsu  Rules which governed\t his  conditions  of
\n\tservice the  State Government alone  was competent to impose
\n\tthe  punishment\t of  dismissal.\t  Under\t the  Pepsu  General
\n\tClauses Act, 1953, “State Government shall mean, in relation
\n\tto anything done or to be done after the commencement of the
\n\tConstitution, the Rajpramukh”.\t(See section 2(46).\n<\/p>\n
\t      As  noted earlier, factually, the appellant  was\tcon-
\n\tfirmed\tand necessarily appointed by the Rajpramukh.   Under
\n\tthe  Pepsu  Rules  the Rajpramukh alone was the\t  appointing
\n\tauthority.  The\t appellant therefore, cannot be removed from
\n\tservice\t by  any authority subordinate to  the\tGovernor  in
\n\tPunjab.\t  The  coordinate authority in Punjab is  the  State
\n\tGovernment.   The Governor of Punjab alone,  therefore,\t was
\n\tcompetent  to pass the order of dismissal of the  appellant.
\n\tThe Financial Commissioner (Revenue) is an authority  subor-
\n\tdinate\tto the Governor.  He was, there, not   competent  to
\n\tpass  the  order  of dismissal.\t The order of  dismissal  is
\n\tviolative  of  Article 311 (1) of the Constitution  and\t is,
\n\ttherefore, invalid and is  liable to be struck down.\n<\/p>\n
\t     Mr.  Sharma, on behalf of the respondent, submits\tthat
\n\tthere is no violation of Article 311 (1)  of the   Constitu-
\n\ttion.\tThe   appointing authority for a post  held  by\t the
\n\tappellant  in the State of Punjab is the  Financial  Commis-
\n\tsioner (Revenue).  He submits that the appointing  authority
\n\tof the appellant  before his integration  into the  State of
\n\tPunjab\tdoes not come into the picture.\t He adds  that\tthis
\n\tsubmission  of his is in consonance with the  provisions  of
\n\tsection 116 of the States   Reorganisation Act, 1956 (brief-
\n\tly  the\t Act).\tWe may, therefore, read section 116  of\t the
\n\tAct:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      “116(1) Every person who\t immediately
\n\t\t      before\tthe  appointed\tday  is\t holding  or
\n\t\t      discharging  the duties of any post or  office
\n\t\t      in connection with the affairs of the Union or
\n\t\t      of an existing State in any area which on that
\n\t\t      day  falls within another existing State or  a
\n\t\t      new  Part\t A State or a Part  C  State  shall,
\n\t\t      except  where by virtue or in  consequence  of
\n\t\t      the provisions of this Act such post or office
\n\t\t      ceases to exist on that day, continue to\thold
\n\t\t      the same post or office in the other  existing
\n\t\t      State  or new Part A State or Part C State  in
\n\t\t      which  such area is included on that day,\t and
\n\t\t      shall be deemed as from that day to have\tbeen
\n\t\t      duly  appointed to such post or office by\t the
\n\t\t      Government of, or other  appropriate authority
\n\t\t      in, such State, or by the Central\t  Government
\n\t\t      or other appropriate authority in such Part  C
\n\t\t      State, as the case may be
\n\t\t      961<\/span>
\n\t\t\t     (2)  Nothing in this section  shall  be
\n\t\t      deemed to prevent a competent authority, after
\n\t\t      the appointed day, from passing in relation to
\n\t\t      any  such\t person any   order   affecting\t his
\n\t\t      continuance in such post or office”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tMr.  Sharma submits, relying upon the provisions of  section
\n\t116(1), that since the appointing authority for an Assistant
\n\tin  the\t State\t of Punjab  is\tthe  Financial\tCommissioner
\n\t(Revenue)  it follows that he is the  appropriate  authority
\n\tunder  section\t116(1) to impose the penalty  of  dismissal.
\n\tThis submission follows\t from what the\tHigh Court  accepted
\n\tin the impugned judgment in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “Our  attention has not been   drawn  on
\n\t\t      behalf of the learned counsel for the respond-
\n\t\t      ent to any rule according to which the  Gover-
\n\t\t      nor of Punjab, as is contended, is the  proper
\n\t\t      authority\t for the appointment of\t Assistants.
\n\t\t      Indeed, it is not disputed that if the  plain-
\n\t\t      tiff  had been appointed as Assistant  in\t the
\n\t\t      State  of Punjab, then the  Financial  Commis-
\n\t\t      sioner (Revenue) would have been the appropri-
\n\t\t      ate  authority competent to enquire  into\t the
\n\t\t      petitioner’s conduct and impose the penalty of
\n\t\t      dismissal; in  other  words, in that case, the
\n\t\t      appointing  authority  could  not\t have\tbeen
\n\t\t      higher in rank than the Financial Commissioner
\n\t\t      (Revenue).   It  is certainly not\t the  plain-
\n\t\t      tiffs-respondent’s   case\t  that\t appropriate
\n\t\t      authority\t for appointing Assistants   in\t the
\n\t\t      State of Punjab is the Governor”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    We are unable to appreciate the above line of  reasoning
\n\tof   the  High\tCourt.\tSection 116(1) is  very\t clear.\t  To
\n\tconcretise the appellant’s case in terms of section  116(1),
\n\tit is sufficient to state that the appellant who, immediate-
\n\tly  before  the appointed day, was holding the\tpost  of  an
\n\tAssistant  in the former State of Pepsu, shall\tcontinue  to
\n\thold  the same post in the new State of Punjab and shall  be
\n\tdeemed as from that day to have beer\/duly appointed to\tsuch
\n\tpost  by the Government of Punjab.  We are not concerned  in
\n\tthe  instant case about the appointment being deemed  to  be
\n\tmade  by  “‘other  appropriate authority” in  the  State  of
\n\tPunjab since the appellant had been appointed by the Rajpra-
\n\tmukh of Pepsu which is equivalent to the State Government of
\n\tPepsu  and  the\t coordinate authority in the  new  State  of
\n\tPunjab is the Governor of Punjab.  The argument that in\t the
\n\tnew  State  of Punjab the Financial Commissioner   (Revenue)
\n\tis   the appropriate authority for appointing Assistants  is
\n\tabsolutely irrelevant in the context of section 116(1) which
\n\tenables\t the  status quo ante to continue except  where\t the
\n\tpost ceases to exist under the provisions of the Act. It  is
\n\talso  important\t to bear in mind the provisions\t of  section
\n\t115(7)\tof  the\t Act where under the  proviso  thereto\t“the
\n\tconditions  of\tservice applicable  immediately\t before\t the
\n\tappointed day to the case of any person referred to in\tsub-
\n\tsection\t (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be varied  to\t his
\n\tdisadvantage  except with the previous approval of the\tCen-
\n\ttral Government”.\n<\/p>\n
\t    One\t of the conditions of service of the  appellant\t was
\n\tthat having been appointed by the State Government of  Pepsu
\n\the could be only dismissed by the State Government of  Pepsu
\n\tif he had continued there.\n<\/p>\n
\t962<\/span><\/p>\n
\t   Under section 116 when he is integrated in the new  State
\n\tof  Punjab  he carries with him ‘that condition\t of  service
\n\twith regard to his termination of employment and it   cannot
\n\tbe. varied to  his disadvantage, under section 115(7) of the
\n\tAct  except with the previous  approval of the Central\tGov-
\n\ternment.   (See\t Takhatray  Shivdatray Mankad  v.  State  of
\n\tGujarat<\/a>(1)and\tBholanath   J.\tThakar\tv.  The\t  State\t  of
\n\tSaurashtra<\/a>(2).\t No such approval of the Central  Government
\n\tin  the instant case is produced before us.  It is,   there-
\n\tfore,  clear that  an authority subordinate to the  Governor
\n\tof  Punjab was not competent to pass the order of  dismissal
\n\tof the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Mr. Sharma submits that the Punjab  Financial  Commis-
\n\tsioner’s Office (State Service Class III) Rules, 1957,\t are
\n\tapplicable  in\tthe instant case.  Therefore, under  rule  4
\n\tthereof the Financial Commissioner is the appointing author-
\n\tity  for  Assistants, the category to: which  the  appellant
\n\tbelongs.  He adds that even though these Rules may be disad-
\n\tvantageous  to the appellant he cannot complain on   account
\n\tof  the\t approval of these Rules by the\t Central  Government
\n\tunder  section 115(7) of the Act.  Mr. Sharma  submits\tthat
\n\tthese Rules received the approval of the Central  Government
\n\tas  will  appear from the  general circular  dated  May\t 11,
\n\t1957,\tto all the  State  Governments.\t He further  submits
\n\tthat  in  N. Raghavendra Rao  v.  Deputy  Commissioner,South
\n\tKanara,\t Mangalore<\/a>(a) and in a recent decision\tin  Mohammad
\n\tShujat\tAli  & Ors. etc. v. Union of India &  Ors.  etc.,(4)
\n\tthis  Court referred to that circular of May 11,  1957,\t and
\n\theld  that that circular amounted to general approval  under
\n\tthe proviso to section 115(7) of the Act.  We are,  however,
\n\tunable\tto see how this memorandum of\tMay 11, 1957 can  be
\n\tcalled in aid as ‘previous approval’ under section 115(7) of
\n\tthe  Act  when the Punjab  Financial  Commissioner’s  Office
\n\t(State Service. Class III). Rules, 1957 were already promul-
\n\tgated  on February 28, 1957.  Approval under section  115(7)
\n\tis previous approval and not  subsequent ratification.\t The
\n\tabove  decisions, therefore, do not come to the aid  of\t the
\n\trespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t     Mr.  Sharma  also drew our attention to a\tdecision  of
\n\tthis Court in Rajvi Amar Singh v. The State of\tRajasthan<\/a>(5)
\n\twhich  is clearly diStinguishable on facts.  This Court\t was
\n\tnot  called upon in that case to consider the provisions  of
\n\tthe State Reorganisation Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t     Our  attention has been drawn by the appellant  to.  an
\n\tunreported  judgment of this Court in Mysore State and\tRoad
\n\tTransport  Corporation,\t etc.  v. Mirja Khasim\tBeg  &\tAnr.
\n\tetc.(6)\t pronounced on December 1, 1976.  This Court had  to
\n\tdeal  with  a similar\tquestion although  appertaining\t to:
\n\tthe “competent\tauthority”  under section 116(2) of the\t Act
\n\tin  the\t background of Article 311(1) of  the  Constitution.
\n\tThe  following\tpassage from that decision  will  make\tthe.
\n\tpoint clear:\n<\/p>\n
\t    (1) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 244.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (2) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 680.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (3) [1964] 7 S.C.R. 549.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (4) [1975] 1 S.C.R. 449.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (5) [1958] S.C.R.1013.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    (6)\t C.A.S. Nos. 1601–1609 & 2402–2405 of\t 1968  dated
\n\t1-12-1976.\n<\/p>\n
\t963<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “In\t the  instant cases, the  first\t re-
\n\t\t      spondents\t  were undeniably appointed  by\t the
\n\t\t      Superintendent   of the Traffic Department  of
\n\t\t      the erstwhile State of Hyderabad who  was\t the
\n\t\t      head of the Road Transport Department of\tthat
\n\t\t      State. On the coming into force of the  States
\n\t\t      Reorganisation Act, 1956, on November 1, 1956,
\n\t\t      they  were  to  be deemed by  virtue  of\tsub-
\n\t\t      section  (1)  of\tsection 116  of\t the  States
\n\t\t      Reorganisation  Act  to. have  been  appointed
\n\t\t      with  effect from that date to the posts\theld
\n\t\t      by  them on that date by the  appropriate\t au-
\n\t\t      thority in the new State of Mysore which could
\n\t\t      not  in  the context mean an  authority  other
\n\t\t      than  the one equivalent to or  coordinate  in
\n\t\t      rank  with  the  aforesaid  authority  in\t the
\n\t\t      erstwhile\t State of Hyderabad.  The  authority
\n\t\t      equivalent  to or coordinate in rank with\t the
\n\t\t      aforesaid authority on the relevant date being
\n\t\t      the  General Manager of the  Mysore Government
\n\t\t      Road  Transport Department according  to.\t the
\n\t\t      appellants’  own\tadmission  as  contained  in
\n\t\t      answer   to   the\t aforesaid   interrogatories
\n\t\t      served  on them by the first  respondents,  he
\n\t\t      alone could be  considered to be\tthe  ‘compe-
\n\t\t      tent authority’ in terms of sub-section (2) of
\n\t\t      section 116 of the States Reorganisation\tAct,
\n\t\t      1956.   The  fact that there was\tno  post  of
\n\t\t      Superintendent  of the Traffic in the  Mysore.
\n\t\t      Government Road Transport\t Department  in\t the
\n\t\t      State   of Mysore is of no consequence.\tSuch
\n\t\t      being the position, the first respondent could
\n\t\t      not  have\t been dismissed from service  by  an
\n\t\t      authority lower or subordinate in rank to\t the
\n\t\t      General  Manager of the Transport\t  Department
\n\t\t      as  it would tantamount to deprivation of\t the
\n\t\t      guarantee\t enshrined  in Article\t311  of\t the
\n\t\t      Constitution  read  with\tsection\t  115(7)  of
\n\t\t      the  States Reorganisation Act,  1956   ……
\n\t\t      “.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t   In  the result both the judgments of the High  Court\t are
\n\tset  aside and the judgments and decrees of the\t Subordinate
\n\tJudge,\tFirst Class, Patiala, stand restored.\tThe  appeals
\n\tare  allowed with costs.  We are thankful to  Mr.  Hingorani
\n\tfor his assistance as amicus curiae in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.H.P.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\n\tallowed.\n\t964<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1233, 1977 SCR (2) 956 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: KRISHAN MURARI LAL SEHGAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1977 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. SHINGAL, P.N. CITATION: 1977 AIR […]<\/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-31482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977 - 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\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977\" \/>\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=\"1977-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-21T06:41:17+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T06:41:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977\"},\"wordCount\":2986,\"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\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977\",\"name\":\"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T06:41:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977\"}]},{\"@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":"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977 - 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\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-21T06:41:17+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977","datePublished":"1977-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T06:41:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977"},"wordCount":2986,"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\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977","name":"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T06:41:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-murari-lal-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-february-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1977"}]},{"@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\/31482","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=31482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}