{"id":32098,"date":"2011-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-21T02:39:10","modified_gmt":"2017-05-20T21:09:10","slug":"santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                                                          W.P. No.5774.09\n\n\n          Writ Petition No. 5774 of 2009\n09\/03\/2011\n    Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the\npetitioner.\n    Heard on admission.\n    This      petition     under       Article   227        of     the\nConstitution of India is directed against the\norder     dated      05-05-2008        passed        by    Central\nAdministrative           Tribunal,          Jabalpur        Bench,\nJabalpur;     whereby,        Original       Application          No.\n242\/2002       filed     by     the     petitioner        seeking\nappointment         on   compassionate           grounds          has\nbeen rejected.\n    The facts briefly are that father of the\npetitioner,       Gopal       Prasad,        employed            with\nCentral     Ordnance          Depot,    Jabalpur,         died       in\nharness on 27-05-1995. The petitioner being\ndependent filed an application on 22-06-1995\nseeking       appointment              on      compassionate\ngrounds.      His    request      for       appointment           was\nrejected by order dated 25-04-2001. Aggrieved\nwhereof        the       petitioner          filed        Original\nApplication before the Central Administrative\nTribunal,     Jabalpur        Bench,        Jabalpur,       raising\ncontentions therein that, between the period\n                                                        W.P. No.5774.09\n\n\nfrom     1995      to     2001    seven        Boards        were\nconstituted        for    considering          requests         for\nappointment on compassionate grounds. It was\ncontended that only the favoured one were\ngranted      appointment         and    the    claim    of      the\npetitioner was not objectively considered.\n       The respondents while contradicting the<\/pre>\n<p>contentions put forth by the petitioner before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal stated that after the death of<br \/>\nfather of the petitioner an application form for<br \/>\nappointment        on    compassionate         grounds         was<br \/>\nsent to the widow vide letter dated 21-07-1995,<br \/>\nin response whereof the same was returned on<br \/>\n07-02-1997. It was contended that the case of<br \/>\nthe petitioner was placed before the Board in<br \/>\nAugust, 1997. The Board considered the case of<br \/>\nthe petitioner as per the policy guide lines and<br \/>\nawarded 54 marks. It was further contended<br \/>\nthat    at   relevant     time    there       was   only       one<br \/>\nvacancy      of   group    &#8216;D&#8217;   and    a     candidate       who<br \/>\nsecured       83        marks     was       appointed.           An<br \/>\ninformation to that effect was sent to the widow<br \/>\non 12-08-1997. Thereafter for subsequent year<br \/>\nfresh form was tendered which was received<br \/>\nduly filled on 29-09-1999. The Board considered<br \/>\n                                                           W.P. No.5774.09<\/p>\n<p>the case of the petitioner along with 3 others<br \/>\nfor   three    vacant       posts      of   group    &#8216;D&#8217;.      It     is<br \/>\ncontended that the petitioner was awarded 40<br \/>\nmarks whereas other 3 candidates respectively<br \/>\nsecured       81,     72    and     63      marks    and       were<br \/>\npreferred for appointment. Thereafter further<br \/>\napplication form was sought for on 04-04-2000<br \/>\nwhich was placed before the Board in January,<br \/>\n2001    for    consideration           of    appointment            on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds against eight vacancies<br \/>\nof    group    &#8216;D&#8217;.    It    is   urged      that    candidates<br \/>\nsecuring 88, 87, 84, 83, 78, 76 and 76 marks<br \/>\nrespectively were appointed. An information to<br \/>\nthat effect was tendered to the widow of late<br \/>\nGopal    Prasad       on     25-04-2009.       Though          some<br \/>\ndisputed facts raised before the Tribunal in<br \/>\nrespect of consideration of the petitioner by<br \/>\nrespective Boards, however, the same were of<br \/>\nno assistance to the petitioner as no cogent<br \/>\nmaterial in support thereof was brought before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The Tribunal after considering the rival<br \/>\ncontentions         and     dwelling        upon    the     factual<br \/>\naspects of the matter dismissed the Original<br \/>\nApplication         preferred     by     the   petitioner           for<br \/>\n                                               W.P. No.5774.09<\/p>\n<p>compassionate appointment by the impugned<br \/>\norder,    which     is   being   challenged   in      this<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is reiterated by the petitioner that there<br \/>\nis no objective consideration by the Board in<br \/>\nrespect      of   appointment     on   compassionate<br \/>\nground. It is urged that had there been so, the<br \/>\nBoard ought to have awarded higher marks to<br \/>\nthe petitioner as would have facilitated his<br \/>\nappointment on compassionate grounds. During<br \/>\nthe course of hearing the petitioner has also<br \/>\nadverted to various circulars issued from time<br \/>\nto time, such as Annexures-P\/12, P\/13 and P\/14<br \/>\ndated 08-06-1989, 30-07-1989 and 12-07-2001.<br \/>\nThe circulars in our considered opinion does<br \/>\nnot improve the status of the petitioner nor it<br \/>\nleads to enhancement of marks which were<br \/>\nalloted to him on the basis of the policy in<br \/>\nvogue       for   appointment     on   compassionate<br \/>\ngrounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Admittedly, the petitioner got less marks<br \/>\nin comparison to other applicants between the<br \/>\nperiod from 1997 till 2001. It is also not in<br \/>\ndispute that after the death of Gopal Prasad on<br \/>\n27-05-1995, the family has faired well and have<br \/>\n                                              W.P. No.5774.09<\/p>\n<p>survived the for such a long period. <a href=\"\/doc\/410404\/\">In Punjab<br \/>\nNational Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar<br \/>\nTaneja<\/a> : (2004) 7 SCC 265 it was observed by<br \/>\ntheir Lordships :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;4&#8230;&#8230;..It is to be seen that the<br \/>\n      appointment on compassionate ground<br \/>\n      is not a source of recruitment but<br \/>\n      merely an exception to the requirement<br \/>\n      regarding appointments being made on<br \/>\n      open invitation of application on merits.<br \/>\n      Basic intention is that on the death of<br \/>\n      the employee concerned his family is<br \/>\n      not deprived of the means of livelihood.<br \/>\n      The object is to enable the family to get<br \/>\n      over sudden financial crisis.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    The   Division    Bench     of   this   Court       in<br \/>\nVirendra Bahadur Singh v. Union of India and<br \/>\nothers : 2004 (2) M.P.L.J. 13 has held :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;5. Even on merits, petitioner is<br \/>\n      not entitled to any relief. Deceased<br \/>\n      died on 17-2-1990 and the family<br \/>\n      has survived for more than 12<br \/>\n      years. It is not pointed out how, in<br \/>\n      the    face     of   statement    by<br \/>\n      respondents, the family is still in<br \/>\n      financial    distress.   Object   of<br \/>\n      compassionate appointment is to<br \/>\n      enable the family to tide over the<br \/>\n      sudden crisis and relieving the<br \/>\n      family from financial distress due<br \/>\n      to the death of the sole bread<br \/>\n      earner of the family. Therefore,<br \/>\n      this type of appointment cannot be<br \/>\n                                                W.P. No.5774.09<\/p>\n<p>     offered. As a matter of course, only<br \/>\n     deserving cases have to be found<br \/>\n     and      offered     compassionate<br \/>\n     appointments,    more    particularly<br \/>\n     when respondents have kept only<br \/>\n     5% of the vacancies falling under<br \/>\n     direct recruitment quota in Group<br \/>\n     &#8220;C&#8221;     and     &#8220;D&#8221;     posts     for<br \/>\n     compassionate          appointment.<br \/>\n     Decision of the Apex Court on<br \/>\n     which reliance is placed by the<br \/>\n     petitioner is of no assistance to<br \/>\n     advance the submission raised by<br \/>\n     him.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    Recently, a Full Bench of this Court in<br \/>\nBank of Maharashtra        and another v. Manoj<br \/>\nKumar Dehariya : 2010 (3) SCC 213 has held :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    &#8220;33- In view of the foregoing discussion,<br \/>\n    we proceed to record our conclusions as<br \/>\n    follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      1. The grant of compassionate appointment<br \/>\n         is not a vested legal right. It is only a<br \/>\n         benefit granted in certain circumstances<br \/>\n         de hors the normal rule of appointment<br \/>\n         and when the employer has a right to<br \/>\n         evolve an appropriate policy after<br \/>\n         considering various factors for granting<br \/>\n         such a benefit, the considerations have to<br \/>\n         be made in accordance with the policy<br \/>\n         that is prevailing at that point of time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      2. When it is held that compassionate<br \/>\n         appointment is not a vested right and<br \/>\n         when grant of such appointment is<br \/>\n         governed by the rules and policies<br \/>\n         prevailing in an establishment, then<br \/>\n         consideration as per the rules existing is<br \/>\n                                             W.P. No.5774.09<\/p>\n<p>     required to be made and consideration as<br \/>\n     per the rules existing is required to be<br \/>\n     made and consideration on the basis of a<br \/>\n     policy, which is given up by the employer<br \/>\n     and which has no application at that<br \/>\n     point of time cannot be insisted upon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>3.   Having regard to the exceptional nature<br \/>\n     of this appointment and taking note of<br \/>\n     the fact that it is granted under a special<br \/>\n     scheme carved out de hors the normal<br \/>\n     mode of recruitment, the same has to be<br \/>\n     governed as per the policies or<br \/>\n     provisions governing such appointment<br \/>\n     prevalent at a particular point of time<br \/>\n     when consideration is to be made, and<br \/>\n     not on the basis of a policy which was in<br \/>\n     vogue and has been given up by the<br \/>\n     employer due to changed circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   As    compassionate       appointment    is<br \/>\n     granted by carving out a special scheme<br \/>\n     contrary to the normal mode of<br \/>\n     recruitment and when the employer or<br \/>\n     the government is at liberty to evolve a<br \/>\n     scheme for granting such appointment<br \/>\n     has to be made in accordance with the<br \/>\n     scheme or policy that is in existence.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The decision rendered in T. Swamy Dass<br \/>\n     (supra) and Heeralal Baria (supra) do not<br \/>\n     lay down the correct law and are hereby<br \/>\n     overruled.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Any right flowing from a settlement<br \/>\n     between the employer and employees&#8217;<br \/>\n     union or association has to be in a<br \/>\n     different compartment.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   It would be the obligation of the<br \/>\n     employer        to     deal    with    the<br \/>\n     application with immediately and<br \/>\n     promptitude so that the grievance<br \/>\n     of a family in distress gets a fair<br \/>\n                                                   W.P. No.5774.09<\/p>\n<p>          treatment in accordance with law.&#8221;<br \/>\n     In view of above we find no discrepancy in<br \/>\nthe order passed by the Tribunal as would<br \/>\nwarrant any interference in a petition under<br \/>\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In   the   result   the   petition   fails    and       is<br \/>\nhereby dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>     (AJIT SINGH)                (SANJAY YADAV)\n        JUDGE                        JUDGE\nSC\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011 W.P. No.5774.09 Writ Petition No. 5774 of 2009 09\/03\/2011 Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 05-05-2008 passed by Central Administrative [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-20T21:09:10+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T21:09:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1214,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T21:09:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-20T21:09:10+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T21:09:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011"},"wordCount":1214,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011","name":"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T21:09:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-kumar-vs-union-of-india-on-9-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/32098","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=32098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32098\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}