{"id":32823,"date":"2000-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000"},"modified":"2015-03-16T08:47:21","modified_gmt":"2015-03-16T03:17:21","slug":"balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Banerjee<\/div>\n
Bench: U.C.Banerjee, S, B, Majumdar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 11881  of  1996\nAppeal (civil)\t11882\t of  1996\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nBALBIR KAUR & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.  & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nU.C.Banerjee, S,B,Majumdar\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
\n      J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
      BANERJEE,J.\n<\/p>\n
      The core question which falls for determination before
\nthis   Court  in  these\t Civil\t Appeals  pertain   to\t the
\ninterpretation\tof  Family Benefit Scheme as  introduced  in
\nNJSC  Tripartite  Agreement  of 1989  and  the\tconsequences
\nthereof on the existing welfare measure as contained in NJSC
\nAgreement  in  1983:  Whereas the Orissa High Court  in\t the
\njudgment  impugned  held that by reason of  introduction  of
\nFamily\tBenefit Scheme in terms of NJSC Tripartite Agreement
\nin  1989,  question of compassionate appointment  would\t not
\narise\t the appellant herein contended that by\t reason\t of
\nclause\t8.14.1\tin the 1989 Agreement;\tthe  requirement  of
\ncompassionate appointment cannot possibly be given a go bye:
\nIt  is an existing obligation and has been expressly  saved.
\nThe appellant contended that having regard to constitutional
\nobligation  as\tregards\t Egalitarian society, the  issue  of
\ncompassionate appointment cannot and ought not to be trifled
\nwith   the question therefore does not seem to be so simple
\nas  suggested by Mr.  Bhasme the learned Advocate  appearing
\nfor  the respondents and the issue undoubtedly is one of the
\nlive  issues  to be decided by this Court, more so  having
\nregard\tto  the constitutional mandate.\t Incidentally be  it
\nnoted  that  the  appeal  No.11882   of\t 1996  (Smt.\tT.K.
\nMeenakshi & Anr.  V.  Steel authority of India Ltd.  & Ors.)
\nhas  been tagged on to the main appeal as argued before this
\nBench  (CA No.11881 of 1996:  Balbir Kaur & Anr.  Vs.  Steel
\nAuthority   of\tIndia  Ltd.   &\t  Ors.)\t by  reason  of\t the
\nconsideration  of the issue pertaining to the Family Benefit
\nScheme\tbut the factual contexts are however at variance and
\nit  is\tin this perspective we deem it fit to advert to\t the
\nfactual matrix of both the matters briefly.  In Civil appeal
\nNo.11881 of 1996:  (Balbir Kaur & Anr.\tVs.  Steel Authority
\nof  India & Ors.) it appears that the appellants before this
\nCourt  are the dependants of a deceased employee Hari Singh,
\nwho happened to be a technician working in the department of
\nCaptive\t Power\tPlant-II  belonging to\tSteel  Authority  of
\nIndia.\t The deceased employee was admitted to Ispat General
\nHospital on 4th August, 1992 and was treated for cancer till
\n24th  September,  1992.\t At the same hospital  the  deceased
\nemployee  however  underwent surgery and subsequent  thereto
\nthe  latter  was advised to undergo treatment  at  Meharbhai
\nTata  Memorial Hospital and accordingly was admitted therein
\non  25th September, 1992 but was discharged on10th November,
\n1992  when  he was asked to report further on 7th  December,
\n1992.\tThe  employee Hari Singh, however, expired  on\t22nd
\nNovember, 1992.\n<\/p>\n
      Further  factual score in the matter in issue  depicts
\nthat  on  22nd\tJanuary, 1993 a\t request  for  compassionate
\nemployment  to\tthe appellant No.2, who is the holder  of  a
\nvalid\theavy\tvehicle\t driving   licence,  was  made\t but
\nunfortunately  of no effect.  Having, however, being  denied
\nof  any\t consideration, the appellant herein moved the\tHigh
\nCourt  and  the latter upon a reasoned judgment negated\t the
\nplea  as  raised in the writ petition before the High  Court
\nand  hence  the appeal before this Court.  The other  appeal
\n(T.K.\tMeenakshi & Anr.  Vs.  Steel Authority of India:  CA
\nNo.11882  of  1996) though pertain to the similar  issue  of
\nFamily\tBenefit\t Scheme, but since the factual score  is  at
\nvariance  with Balbir Kaurs matter, it would be\t convenient
\nto  advert  to\tthe  same briefly  at  this  juncture.\t The
\nappellants  herein are the dependants of one M.\t Kesavam the
\ndeceased  employee  of respondent No.1.\t Kesavam during\t his
\nlife   time  was  working  as  an  operator  in\t Coke\tOven
\n(Operation)  of Rourkela Steel Plant of the Steel  Authority
\nof India.  The appellant No.1 being the wife of the deceased
\nemployee  developed certain complications after a surgery at
\nIspat  General\tHospital  and  was  advised  to\t proceed  to
\nChristian Medical College, Vellore vide movement order dated
\n3rd  January,  1994.  The Service Conduct Appeal Rules\tread
\nwith  Circular\tissued from time to time by  the  respondent
\nNo.1,  entitles\t a  lady  patient  for\tan  escort  as\talso
\ntravelling  allowance  and in terms therewith  the  deceased
\nemployee  applied for grant of advance travelling  allowance
\nfor  himself  as an escort and his wife as patient  and\t was
\nsanctioned  an\tadvance travelling allowance  of  Rs.3280\/-.
\nThe  factual  score  depicts that the appellant\t No.1  being
\naccompanied  by\t the deceased employee went to\tVellore\t for
\nmedical\t treatment  on\t20th  January, 1994  but  whilst  at
\nVellore the deceased employee fell ill somewhat seriously by
\nreason\twherefore  the latter was admitted at the  Christian
\nMedical\t College  Hospital at Vellore on 25th January,\t1994
\nand on 28th January, 1994 the deceased employee breathed his
\nlast.  The factual aspect therefore depicts rather a sad and
\ndismal\tpicture\t  a person with a desire to have  his  wife
\ntreated\t at the Christian Medical College Hospital, goes  to
\nVellore\t and there dies within three days after admission to
\nthe  hospital.\t It is on this count that the widow  of\t the
\ndeceased  employee made a request to the Steel Authority  of
\nIndia\tfor  providing\tcompassionate\temployment  to\t the
\nappellant   No.2  since\t the   bread-earner  of\t the  family
\nunfortunately  met  with  pre-mature  death  resulting\tinto
\nuntold\tfinancial  sufferings  for the entire  family.\t The
\nrepresentations\t went  unheeded by reason wherefore  a\twrit
\npetition  was moved before the High Court.  The decision  of
\nthe  High Court as noticed above upheld the validity of\t the
\nFamily\t Benefit  Scheme  and\tanswered  the  question\t  of
\ncompassionate  employment  in  the  negative  by  reason  of
\nintroduction  of such a scheme.\t It is this order which\t has
\nbeen  impugned\tin this appeal before this court  and  since
\nissues\tinvolving in both these two matters being  identical
\nas  dealt  with presently this matter has been tagged on  to
\nthe  other  matter  of Balbir Kaur as noted  above.   Before
\nhowever,  embarking on an inquiry in regard thereto it would
\nbe  convenient\tto note however the necessary provisions  of
\nthe  NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1983 as also of 1989.\t The
\nsame are set out herein below:-\n<\/p>\n
      Cl.7.16 NJCS Agreement, 1983<\/p>\n
      Cl.7.16:\tEmployment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Employment  would\t be  provided to  one  dependant  of
\nworkers\t disabled permanently and those who meet with death.
\nOne  dependant\tof the retiring employee would\tbe  provided
\nemployment,  but in case of TISCO, the same would be subject
\nto their Certified Standing Orders.\n<\/p>\n
      1989 Tripartite Agreement:\n<\/p>\n
      Cl.8.10.4:   In case of death due to accident  arising
\nout  of\t and in course of employment, employment to  one  of
\nhis\/her direct dependant will be provided.\n<\/p>\n
      Cl.8.10.5:   A Scheme would be introduced by NJCS\t for
\nemployees  who\tdie  while  in service or  who\tsuffer\tfrom
\npermanent  total  disablement  to receive  monthly  payments
\nafter\tthe  death\/permanent  total   disablement   of\t the
\nemployees,  in case the widow\/employees deposit P.F.  amount
\nand   Gratuity\tdues  with   the  Companys  separate  trust
\nconstituted  for  this purpose.\t When finalised, the  Scheme
\nwould be effective from 1.1.1989.\n<\/p>\n
      Cl.8.14.1:   Benefits provided under the previous NJCS
\nAgreement  will continue, unless otherwise specified in this
\nAgreement.\n<\/p>\n
      Cl.8.14.2:    Merely   as\t  a   consequence   of\t the
\nimplementation\tof this Agreement, any facility,  privilege,
\namenity,  benefit,  monetary or otherwise or  concession  to
\nwhich  an  employee might be entitled by way of practice  or
\nusage,\tshall not be withdrawn, reduced or curtailed  except
\nto the extent and manner as provided for in this Agreement.\n<\/p>\n
      The   employer  being  Steel   Authority\t of   India,
\nadmittedly an authority within the meaning of Article 12 has
\nthus  an obligation to act in terms of the avowed  objective
\nof  social  and\t economic  justice   as\t enshrined  in\t the
\nConstitution  but  has\tthe authority in the  facts  of\t the
\nmatters\t under consideration acted like a model and an ideal
\nemployer   It is in this factual backdrop, the issue  needs
\nan  answer  as\tto whether we have been able to\t obtain\t the
\nbenefit\t of constitutional philosophy of social and economic
\njustice\t or  not.  Have the lofty ideals which the  founding
\nfathers\t placed before us any effect in our daily life\tthe
\nanswer\tcannot however but be in the negative  what happens
\nto  the\t constitutional\t philosophy as is available  in\t the
\nConstitution  itself,  which  we ourselves  have  so  fondly
\nconferred  on  to  ourselves.  The  socialistic\t pattern  of
\nsociety\t as  envisaged\tin  the\t  Constitution\thas  to\t  be
\nattributed its full meaning:  A person dies while taking the
\nwife  to  a  hospital  and  the cry of\tthe  lady  for\tbare
\nsubsistence  would go unheeded on certain technicality.\t The
\nbread  earner  is  no  longer\tavailable  and\tprayer\t for
\ncompassionate  appointment would be denied, as it is likely
\nto  open a Pandoras Box\t This is the resultant effect  of
\nour  entry into the new millenium.  Can the law courts be  a
\nmute  spectator in the matter of denial of such a relief  to
\nthe  horrendous sufferings of an employees family by reason
\nof  the\t death of the bread-earner.  It is in  this  context
\nthis  Courts  observations in Dharwad Distt.  PWD  Literate
\nDaily Wage Employees Assn.  & Ors.  v.\tState of Karnataka &
\nOrs.   [1990 (2) SCC 396] seem to be rather apposite.\tThis
\nCourt upon consideration of Randhir Sigh v.  Union of India,<\/a>
\n[1988\t (1)   SCC122]\t as\talso   Surinder\t  Singh\t  v.
\nEngineer-in-chief  [1986  (1)  SCC 639];  and DS  Nakara  v.
\nUnion  of India<\/a> [1983 (1) SCC 305] observed in paragraphs 14
\nand 15 as below:\n<\/p>\n
      14.   We would like to point out that the\t philosophy
\nof  this  Court as evolved in the cases we have referred  to
\nabove  is  not\tthat of the court but is  ingrained  in\t the
\nConstitution  as  one of the basic aspects and if there\t was
\nany  doubt  on\tthis  there is no room for  that  after\t the
\nPreamble has been amended and the Forty-second Amendment has
\ndeclared  the  Republic\t to  be\t  a  socialistic  one.\t The
\njudgments,  therefore,\tdo nothing more than  highlight\t one
\naspect\tof the constitutional philosophy and make an attempt
\nto give the philosophy a reality of flesh and blood.\n<\/p>\n
      15.   Jawaharlal\tNehru, the first Prime\tMinister  of
\nthis  Republic\twhile dreaming of elevating the lot  of\t the
\ncommon man of this country once stated:\n<\/p>\n
      Our  final  aim can only be a classless society  with
\nequal  economic\t justice and opportunity to all,  a  society
\norganised  on a planned basis for the raising of mankind  to
\nhigher\tmaterial and cultural levels.  Everything that comes
\nin  the\t way  will have to be removed gently,  if  possible;
\nforcibly  if  necessary, and there seems to be little  doubt
\nthat coercion will often be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
      These  were  his prophetic words about  three  decades
\nback.\tMore than a quarter of century has run out since  he
\nleft  us  but there has yet been no percolation in  adequate
\ndose  of  the benefits the constitutional philosophy  stands
\nfor to the lower strata of society.  Tolstoy wrote:\n<\/p>\n
      The abolition of slavery has gone on for a long time.
\nRome abolished slavery.\t America abolished it and we did but
\nonly the words were abolished, not the thing.\n<\/p>\n
      Perhaps  what Tolstoy wrote about abolition of slavery
\nin  a  large  sense  applies to what we\t have  done  to\t the
\nconstitutional ethos.  It has still remained on paper and is
\ncontained  in  the book.  The benefits have not yet  reached
\nthe common man.\t What Swami Vivekananda wrote in a different
\ncontext\t may  perhaps help a quicker implementation  of\t the
\ngoal  to  bring about the overdue changes  for\ttransforming
\nIndia  in a positive way and in fulfilling the dreams of the
\nConstitution fathers.  These were the words of the Swami:\n<\/p>\n
      It  is imperative that all this various yogas  should
\nbe  carried out in practice.  Mere theories about them\twill
\nnot do any good.  First we have to hear about them;  then we
\nhave  to  think about them.  We have to reason the  thoughts
\nout,  impress  them  on\t our minds  and\t meditate  on  them;
\nrealise\t them, until at last they become our whole life.  No
\nlonger will religion remain a bundle of ideas or theories or
\nan  intellectual assent;  it will enter into our very  self.
\nBy  means of an intellectual assent, we may today  subscribe
\nto  many  foolish  things, and change our  minds  altogether
\ntomorrow.   But\t true religion never changes.\tReligion  is
\nrealisation;   not talk, nor doctrine, nor theories, however
\nbeautiful  they\t may  be.   It is being\t and  becoming,\t not
\nhearing\t or acknowledging.  It is the whole souls  becoming
\nchanged into what it believes.\tThat is religion.\n<\/p>\n
      As  a  matter  of fact the  constitutional  philosophy
\nshould\tbe  allowed to become a part of every mans life\t in
\nthis  country  and  then  only the  Constitution  can  reach
\neveryone and the ideals of the Constitution framers would be
\nachieved  since\t the people would be nearer the goal set  by
\nthe  Constitution  –  an  ideal\t situation  but\t a  far\t cry
\npresently.\n<\/p>\n
      Unfortunately,  the  High\t Court has  completely\tlost
\nsight of this aspect of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
      Turning  on  to the factual aspects once again, it  is
\nnot   that  compassionate  appointments\t  have\tnever\tbeen
\neffected.   Steel  Authority of India was in fact  providing
\ncompassionate  employment  to one dependant of\tan  employee
\ndying  in  harness or permanently disabled.  As a matter  of
\nfact on 22nd September, 1982 the respondent-Steel Authority,
\nfurther\t issued\t the Circular pertaining to appointments  on
\ncompassionate  grounds.\t The Circular however for the  first
\ntime  introduced categorisation of compassionate  employment
\nas  First  Priority Cases;  Second Priority Cases and  Third
\nPriority Cases.\t The Circular reads as below:\n<\/p>\n
      The system of compassionate appointments was reviewed
\nin  a  meeting of the Advisory Committee recently.   On\t the
\nlines  of  the\tdiscussions, the system may be\toperated  in
\nfuture as given below:\n<\/p>\n
      1.  First Priority Cases<\/p>\n
      (a)  Employment of a dependent of an employee who dies
\nowing  to  an accident arising out of and in the  course  of
\nemployment;\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  Employment of a dependent of an employee who dies
\nin a road accident while on duty or while coming to or going
\nback from duty.\n<\/p>\n
      The existing practice will continue.\n<\/p>\n
      2.  Second Priority Cases<\/p>\n
      i.e.   employment of a dependent of an employee  whose
\nservices  are terminated in accordance with order 23 of\t the
\nStanding  Orders,  i.e.\t  on  his  being  found\t permanently
\nmedically unfit for his job by the Director M&HS.\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  Dependents  of  only\t those\temployees  would  be
\nconsidered  for\t employment on compassionate  grounds  whose
\nservices  are  terminated  on the ground of  being  declared
\npermanently  unfit for their job before they enter 56th year
\nof age, that is, they have a balance of at least three years
\nof service.\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  The\tminimum period of service of  the  employer,
\nwhose  dependent is to be considered for employment, will be
\n10 years, as against 5 years under the existing rules.\n<\/p>\n
      3.  Third Priority Cases<\/p>\n
      i.e., Cases of death for reasons not covered under (I)
\nabove.\tThe existing rules will continue.\n<\/p>\n
      The  above  will be subject to the  following  general
\nconditions:\n<\/p>\n
      (i) The eligible dependents for consideration for such
\nemployment would continue to be wife\/husband\/son\/daughter.\n<\/p>\n
      (ii)  No\temployment  would be provided  to  a  second
\ndependent,  i.e.,  if the husband\/wife or a son\/daughter  of
\nthe  deceased  or  of  the   employee  whose  services\t are
\nterminated  on his being found medically unfit is already in
\nemployment of RSP, no employment will be provided to another
\ndependent.\n<\/p>\n
      (iii)  The  employee  covered under the  2nd  and\t 3rd
\npriorities-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  should  not have been awarded a major  punishment
\nduring the last 5 years of their service and<\/p>\n
      (b)  should have at least good grading in the CCR\t for
\nthe last 3 years<\/p>\n
      This has the approval of the Managing Director.\n<\/p>\n
      The  requirement\tof such an insertion in the body  of
\nthe   judgment\twas  felt  expedient   by  reason   of\t the
\nintroduction  of  the  priorities and in any  event  special
\nreference  may be made to clause 7.16 of the Circular  which
\nexpressly  records  cases of death for reasons\tnot  covered
\nunder  (I)  above and in that event the existing rules\twill
\ncontinue.   The existing rules as a matter of fact were\t not
\nprohibitive  of\t such  compassionate appointments  but\tlend
\naffirmation  to\t such  appointments.  Mr.   Bhasme,  learned
\nAdvocate  appearing  for the Steel authority contended\tthat
\nthe  Family Benefit Scheme was introduced on 21st  November,
\n1992  and  the\tsalient features of the Scheme were  to\t the
\neffect that the family being unable to obtain regular salary
\nfrom the management, could avail of the scheme by depositing
\nthe  lump  sum provident fund and gratuity amount  with\t the
\ncompany\t in lieu of which the management would make  monthly
\npayment\t equivalent to the basic pay together with  dearness
\nallowance  last drawn, which payment would continue till the
\nnormal\tdate of superannuation of the employee in  question.
\nMr.  Bhasme further contended that adaptation of this Family
\nBenefit\t Scheme\t was meant to provide an assured or  regular
\nincome\tper month, while the bulk amount deposited by way of
\nprovident  fund\t and gratuity with the\tmanagement  remained
\nintact.\t  Mr.\tBhasme,\t contended   that  consequently\t  on
\ndeposits  as  above,  with the\tmanagement,  the  employees
\nfamily\t could\t avail\tof  pay\t up  to\t  normal   date\t  of
\nsuperannuation\ton the footing that the employee though\t not
\nactually  working but notionally continued to work till\t the
\nnormal\tdate  of  superannuation and such a scheme  in\tfact
\nstands\tat a much better footing and much more beneficial to
\nan  employee  or  a  deceased  employee.   Apparently  these
\nconsiderations\tweighed\t with the High Court and the  latter
\nthus  proceeded on the basis that by reason of adaptation of
\na Family Benefit Scheme by the Employees Union, question of
\nany  departure\ttherefrom or any  compassionate\t appointment
\ndoes  not  and\tcannot arise.  But in our view\tthis  Family
\nBenefit Scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit
\nof  compassionate  appointments.   The sudden  jerk  in\t the
\nfamily\tby reason of the death of the bread earner can\tonly
\nbe  absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to
\nthe  family    This  is rather unfortunate but\tthis  is  a
\nreality.  The feeling of security drops to zero on the death
\nof  the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it
\nis  at\tthat  juncture\tif  some lump  sum  amount  is\tmade
\navailable  with\t a  compassionate   appointment,  the  grief
\nstricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and
\nmanage\tits  affairs in the normal course of events.  It  is
\nnot  that  monetary benefit would be the replacement of\t the
\nbread  earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some  solace
\nto  the\t situation.   It  is significant to  note  that\t the
\nEmployees  Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act  of
\n1952  is a beneficial piece of legislation and can amply  be
\ndescribed as social security statute, the object of which is
\nto  ensure  better future of the concerned employee  on\t his
\nretirement  and for the benefit of the dependants in case of
\nhis earlier death.  As regards the provisions of the Payment
\nof  Gratuity Act, 1972 (as amended from time to time) it  is
\nno  longer  in\tthe realm of charity but a  statutory  right
\nprovided in favour of the employee.  Section 4 of the Act is
\nof  some significance and as such the same is set out herein
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Payment  of gratuity.   (1) Gratuity\t shall\tbe
\npayable\t to an employee on the termination of his employment
\nafter  he has rendered continuous service for not less\tthan
\nfive years, –\n<\/p>\n
      (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or
\nresignation,  or  (c)  on his death or\tdisablement  due  to
\naccident or disease;\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat the completion of continuous service of
\nfive  years shall not be necessary where the termination  of
\nthe   employment  of  any  employee  is\t due  to  death\t  or
\ndisablement:\n<\/p>\n
      [Provided\t further  that in the case of death  of\t the
\nemployee,  gratuity  payable  to him shall be  paid  to\t his
\nnominee\t or,  if no nomination has been made, to his  heirs,
\nand  where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the  share
\nof  such  minor,  shall be deposited  with  the\t controlling
\nauthority  who shall invest the same for the benefit of such
\nminor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be
\nprescribed, until such minor attains majority.]<\/p>\n
      It is upon consideration of the above noted provisions
\nof  Section 4, it was contended that question of  compulsory
\ndepositing of the gratuity amount does not and cannot arise.
\nWe  shall come back to the deposit of the Provident Fund but
\nas  regards the Gratuity amount, be it noted that there is a
\nmandate\t of  the statute that Gratuity is to be paid to\t the
\nemployee on his retirement or to his dependants in the event
\nof  his\t early\tdeath  the introduction of  Family  Pension
\nScheme\tby  which the employee is compelled to\tdeposit\t the
\nGratuity  amount,  as a matter of fact runs counter to\tthis
\nbeneficial   piece  of\tlegislation   (Act  of\t1972).\t The
\nstatutory  mandate is unequivocal and unambiguous in  nature
\nand  runs to the effect that the gratuity is payable to\t the
\nheirs  of the nominees of the concerned employees but by the
\nintroduction  of  the  Family Pension Scheme,  this  mandate
\nstands violated and as such the same cannot but be termed to
\nbe  illegal  in\t nature.  We do find some substance  in\t the
\ncontention  as\traised,\t a  mandatory  statutory  obligation
\ncannot\tbe trifled with by adaptation of a method which runs
\ncounter to the statute.\t It does not take long to appreciate
\nthe  purpose for which this particular Family Pension Scheme
\nhas been introduced by deposit of the provident fund and the
\ngratuity  amount  and we are not expressing any\t opinion  in
\nregard\t thereto  but  the   fact  remains  that   statutory
\nobligation  cannot be left high and dry on the whims of\t the
\nemployer irrespective of the factum of the employer being an
\nauthority  within  the\tmeaning\t of   Article  12  or\tnot.
\nAdverting  to the Provident Fund, be it noted that the\tsame
\nis  payable to an employee under the provisions of a statute
\nand this statutory obligation cannot possibly by deferred in
\nthe  event of an untimely death of a worker or an  employee.
\nAs noticed above, the family needs the money in lump-sum and
\navailability of this amount is the only insulating factor in
\nsuch  a grief stricken family.\tThe amount is payable in one
\nlump  and  as  a matter of fact it acts as a buffer  to\t the
\nretirement  of\tor on the death of an employee.\t  Situations
\nare  not  difficult to conceive when the family\t needs\tsome
\nlump-  sum  amount but in the event of deposit of  the\tsame
\nwith  the employer, the heirs of the deceased employee could
\nbe  put\t into the same problems of realities of\t life,\teven
\nthough, if this money would have been made available to them
\nthe situation could have been otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
      In  any event as appears in the contextual facts,\t the
\nNJCS   Agreement  being\t a  Tripartite\tAgreement  expressly
\npreserves  the 1982 circular to the effect that any  benefit
\nconferred  by  the  earlier circular shall  continue  to  be
\neffective  and\ton  the wake of the same we do not  see\t any
\nreason\tto deny the petitioner the relief sought for in\t the
\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n
      On the wake of the aforesaid, we do feel it convenient
\nto  record  that the option should have been made  available
\neither\t to  have  a  compassionate  appointment   provided,
\nhowever, the deceased employees representative is otherwise
\ncompetent  to hold the post or the adaptation of the  family
\npension\t fund  by  way\tof deposit  of\tprovident  fund\t and
\ngratuity  amounts.   In fact, however, there was  no  option
\ntaken  from  the  employees, at least no records  have\tbeen
\nproduced  therefor,  neither  any submissions made  in\tthat
\nregard.\t  Mr.\tBhasme, further pointed out that though\t the
\npresent\t appeals  related  to two individual cases  but\t any
\ninterpretation\t contrary  to  the   one  canvassed  by\t the
\nrespondent is likely to open a pandoras box, since in the
\nhuge empire of the respondent, several such cases would be
\nexisting  which would have to be reconsidered.\tMr.   Bhasme
\nfurther contended that family members of large number of the
\nemployees  have already availed of the Family Benefit Scheme
\nand  as\t such  it  would  be  taken  to\t be  otherwise\tmore
\nbeneficial  to\tthe concerned employee.\t We are\t not  called
\nupon  to  assess  the situation but the\t fact  remains\tthat
\nhaving\tdue regard to the constitutional philosophy to decry
\na compassionate employment opportunity would neither be fair
\nnor  reasonable.   The\tconcept\t of social  justice  is\t the
\nyardstick  to the justice administration system or the legal
\njustice\t and  as  Rescopound pointed out that  the  greatest
\nvirtue\tof  law is in its adaptability and  flexibility\t and
\nthus  it would be otherwise an obligation for the law courts
\nalso to apply the law depending upon the situation since the
\nlaw  is made for the society and whichever is beneficial for
\nthe  society,  the  endeavour of the law court would  be  to
\nadminister justice having due regard in that direction.\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned  Advocate  appearing in  support  of\t the
\nappeal\tvery  strongly\tcontended that\tas  per\t appellants
\ninformation  the  respondent Steel Authority of India is  in
\nfact  providing\t compassionate\temployment even now  to\t one
\ndependant  of  an employee dying in harness  or\t permanently
\ndisabled.   We are however not inclined to go into the issue
\non this score.\n<\/p>\n
      In  that view of the matter these appeals succeed, the
\norder  of the High Court stands set aside.  Steel  Authority
\nof  India is directed to consider the cases of compassionate
\nappointments  in  so  far as the appellants  are  concerned.
\nThere shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000 Author: Banerjee Bench: U.C.Banerjee, S, B, Majumdar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 11881 of 1996 Appeal (civil) 11882 of 1996 PETITIONER: BALBIR KAUR & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. DATE OF […]<\/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-32823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBalbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - 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\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-16T03:17:21+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T03:17:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":4195,\"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\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T03:17:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - 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\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-16T03:17:21+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T03:17:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000"},"wordCount":4195,"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\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000","name":"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T03:17:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-anr-vs-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-ors-on-5-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balbir Kaur & Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 May, 2000"}]},{"@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\/32823","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=32823"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32823\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}