{"id":33697,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-15T23:01:11","modified_gmt":"2018-11-15T17:31:11","slug":"murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/09\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\nWrit Petition (MD)No.234 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010\n\nMurugesan, S\/o.T.Ammavasai\t\t... Petitioner\n \t\t\t\t\t\nvs.\n\nThe Deputy Works Manager,\nGovernment Branch Press,\nMadurai-7.\t\t\t\t ... Respondent\n\t\n\t\tWrit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records\nrelating to the impugned order Na.Ka.No.A2\/3672\/2009, dated 21.11.2009, quashing\nthe same anc consequently directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.22,016\/-\n(Twenty two thousand and sixteen only) as Medical Reimbursement incurred by the\npetitioner within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.\n\n!For Petitioner       ...  Mr.D.Saravanan\n^For Respondent       ...  Mr.V.Rajasekaran,\n\t\t\t   Spl.Government Pleader.\n\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThe writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent,<br \/>\ndated 21.11.2009, by which the respondent has rejected the claim of the<br \/>\npetitioner for reimbursement of the amount spent by him for medical treatment<br \/>\n&#8216;coronary  angiogram&#8217; undergone by him on the ground that the treatment does not<br \/>\nfind a place in the list of treatments enumerated by the Government under the<br \/>\nScheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is a member of the<br \/>\nScheme, has undergone the said coronary angiogram in M\/s.Vadamalaiyan Hospital<br \/>\nat Madurai. When once it is admitted that the petitioner is covered under the<br \/>\nScheme, he is entitled for reimbursement.  The said right cannot be denied on<br \/>\nthe ground that the treatment has not been taken in the empanelled hospitals or<br \/>\non the ground that the nature of treatment is not in the list of treatments<br \/>\ngiven by the Government.  The nature of treatment to be obtained\/given for a<br \/>\npatient is based on the consultation from the doctor, as an expert, and that<br \/>\nright, which form part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India, cannot be curtailed by stating that certain kind of<br \/>\ntreatments alone are eligible for reimbursement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.This concept as to whether the Government can impose a condition<br \/>\nthat for the purpose of obtaining medical reimbursement the treatment must have<br \/>\nbeen taken only in the empanelled hospitals or the treatment must be only for<br \/>\nsuch nature of diseases mentioned by the Government has been considered from<br \/>\ntime immemorial by the Apex Court and in a series of judgments the Apex Court<br \/>\nhas held that at the time of distress, a patient cannot be expected to instruct<br \/>\nhis doctor to give a particular treatment and it is ultimately for the doctor to<br \/>\ngive treatment and not for the patient to suggest.  That was the view expressed<br \/>\nby the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sadhu r.Pall v. State of PUnjab &#8211; (1994)<br \/>\n1 SLR 283 (P&amp;H).  In that case, reimbursement was rejected on the ground that<br \/>\ntreatment was not taken in any one of the empanelled hospitals.  In those<br \/>\ncircumstances, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in urgency, one<br \/>\ncannot expected to sit at home in cool and calm atmosphere for getting medical<br \/>\ntreatment in a particular hospital mentioned in the Government Order.  The<br \/>\nDivision Bench has observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The respondents appear to have patently used excusals in refusing full<br \/>\nreimbursement when the factum of treatment and the urgency for the same has been<br \/>\naccepted by the respondents by reimbursing the petitioner the expenses incurred<br \/>\nby him, which he would have incurred in the AIIMS, New Delhi.  We cannot lose<br \/>\nsight of factual situation in the AIIMS, New Delhi, i.e. with respect to the<br \/>\nnumber of patients received there for heart problems.  In such an urgency, one<br \/>\ncannot sit at home and think in a cool and calm atmosphere for getting medical<br \/>\ntreatment at a particular hospital or wait for admission in some government<br \/>\nmedical institute.  In such a situation, decision has to be taken forthwith by<br \/>\nthe person or his attendants if precious life has to be saved.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.The said reasoning of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been<br \/>\nconfirmed with approval by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in Surjit Singh  v. State of<br \/>\nPunjab &#8211; (1996) 2 SCC 336.  It was a case where a person who was eligible for<br \/>\nreimbursement under the Scheme has taken treatment in Escorts Hospitals. The<br \/>\nauthorities, while dealing with the reimbursement application for treatment,<br \/>\nhave contended that if the treatment was taken in AIIMS the cost would have been<br \/>\nlesser.  In those circumstances, by approving the above referred to judgment of<br \/>\nthe Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Supreme Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;12.The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self-<br \/>\npreservation.  He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the<br \/>\nmanning and assembling of which, barefacedly, makes its meetings difficult to<br \/>\nhappen.  The appellant also did not  have  to  stand in queue in the government<\/p>\n<p>hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternative hospital as per<br \/>\npolicy.  When the State itself has brought Escorts on the recognised list, it is<br \/>\nfutile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to<br \/>\nEscorts and his claim cannot on the that basis be allowed, on suppositions.  We<br \/>\nthink to the contrary.  In the facts and circumstances, had the appellant<br \/>\nremained in India, he could have gone to Escorts like many others did, to save<br \/>\nhis life.  But instead he has done that in London incurring considerable<br \/>\nexpense.  The doctors causing his operation there are presumed to have done so<br \/>\nas one essential and timely.  On that hypothesis, it is fair and just that the<br \/>\nrespondents pay to the appellant, the rates admissible as per Escorts.  The<br \/>\nclaim of the appellant having been found valid, the question posed at the outset<br \/>\nis answered in the affirmative.  Of course the sum of Rs.40,000\/- already paid<br \/>\nto the appellant would have to be adjusted in computation.  Since the appellant<br \/>\ndid not have his claim dealt with in the High Court in the manner it has been<br \/>\nprojected now in this Court, we do not grant him any interest for the<br \/>\nintervening period, even though prayed for.  Let the difference be paid to the<br \/>\nappellant within two months positively.  The appeal is accordingly allowed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.The next point raised by the learned Special Government Pleader<br \/>\nthat coronary angiogram cannot be considered as a treatment also is not tenable.<br \/>\nIn fact, in <a href=\"\/doc\/1179514\/\">E.Ramalingam  vs.  The Director of Collegiate Education and<\/a> another\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; 2007-1 L.W. 10, this Court, while dealing with the treatment of<br \/>\nAngioplasty\/PTCA Stent, which is also similar in nature as that of coronary<br \/>\nangiogram, held that such treatment would also to be covered under the scheme<br \/>\nfor reimbursement.   In fact, in these cases which are of the beneficial<br \/>\nlegislation, one cannot look into technicalities and the real idea of the Scheme<br \/>\nhas to be implemented.  Once it is established that a person, who is eligible<br \/>\nfor reimbursement under the Scheme, has undergone treatment, of course subject<br \/>\nto the maximum limit for which he is entitled as per the Scheme, it is not<br \/>\ncertainly open to the authorities to deny his legitimate right, since<br \/>\nconsistently it has been the view of judicial fora that taking treatment is a<br \/>\nright to life flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is the<br \/>\nbasic fundamental right of a citizen.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.In such view of the matter,  the impugned order of the respondent<br \/>\nis set aside and the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the<br \/>\nrespondent to reimburse a sum of Rs.22,016\/- (Rupees twenty two thousand and<br \/>\nsixteen only) claimed by the petitioner, however, subject to the limitation<br \/>\nprescribed under the Scheme and such payment shall be effected within four weeks<br \/>\nfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  No order as to costs.<br \/>\nConnected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gb\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Deputy Works Manager,<br \/>\nGovernment Branch Press,<br \/>\nMadurai-7.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/09\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Writ Petition (MD)No.234 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 Murugesan, S\/o.T.Ammavasai &#8230; Petitioner vs. The Deputy Works Manager, Government Branch Press, Madurai-7. &#8230; Respondent Writ Petition under [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-15T17:31:11+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\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T17:31:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1211,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T17:31:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-15T17:31:11+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\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T17:31:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1211,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010","name":"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T17:31:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-deputy-works-manager-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugesan vs The Deputy Works Manager on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/33697","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=33697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}