{"id":34147,"date":"1993-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993"},"modified":"2015-01-27T09:23:12","modified_gmt":"2015-01-27T03:53:12","slug":"t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993","title":{"rendered":"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, &#8230; on 17 February, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, &#8230; on 17 February, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR  (1)1078, \t  1993 SCC  (2) 174<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Singh<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nT.S. THIRUVENGADAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE  SECRETARY\tTO  GOVT.  OF INDIA,  MINISTRY\tOF  FINANCE,\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/02\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 SCR  (1)1078\t  1993 SCC  (2) 174\n JT 1993 (1)   609\t  1993 SCALE  (1)625\n\n\nACT:\nCivil Services:\nCentral\t Civil\tServices (Pension)  Rules,  1972  Retirement\nbenefits   Govt.   servants  absorbed\tin   public   sector\nUndertakings-Government of India Memorandum dated 16.6.1967-\nRevised\t Terms and Conditions-Made applicable to  those\t who\nretired after the issue; of Memorandum-Validity of.\nConstitution of India, 1950.\nArticles  14  and 16-Retirement benefits to  Govt.  servants\nabsorbed in Public Sector Undertakings-Government of  India-\nMemorandum dated 16.6.1967-Terms and Conditions revised-Made\napplicable   from   date  of  issue   of   the\t Memorandum-\nReasonableness\tof the\tclassification-Cut-off\tdate-whether\narbitrary and discriminatory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\twas  serving the  Audit\t Department  of\t the\nGovernment of India.  He was sent on foreign service to\t the\nPublic\tSector Undertaking Neyveli Lignite Corporation\tLtd.\n(N.L.C.)  and was absorbed there.  Before joining N.L.C.  he\nhad  already  completed 15 years of  pensionable  government\nservice.   Retirement benefits in such cases were  regulated\nby Memorandum dated November 10, 1960 issued by the Ministry\nof   Finance   (Department  of\tExpenditure),\tNew   Delhi.\nAccording to the said Memorandum the retirement benefits for\nservice\t  rendered  by\ta  government  servant\tbefore\t his\nabsorption in a public undertaking were admissible equal  to\nwhat   the  government\twould  have  contributed   had\t the\nindividual  been on contributory provident fund terms,\twith\n2%  simple  interest  thereon.\t The  Government  of   India\nsubsequently issued Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 providing\nrevised terms and conditions of absorption in Central Public\nSector Undertakings but restricted the revised benefits only\nto  those who were absorbed on or after June 16, 1967.\t The\nappellant retired 1078\n1079\nfrom  the public undertaking and was paid a sum of Rs.\t3036\nas  retirement\tbenefits in terms of  the  Memorandum  dated\nNovember  10,  1960.  The benefit of the revised  terms\t and\nconditions  of\tabsorption as contained\t in  the  government\nMemorandum  dated June 16, 1967 was denied to the  appellant\non the ground that he was absorbed in the public undertaking\nprior  to  the\tdate  of  coming  into\tforce  of  the\tsaid\nMemorandum.   The appellant challenged the same by riling  a\nWrit Petition before the High Court.  Subsequently, the Writ\nPetition  was  transferred  to\tthe  Central  Administrative\nTribunal  which rejected the claim of the appellant.   Being\naggrieved  against  the Tribunal's judgment,  the  appellant\npreferred the present appeal.\nIt was contended on behalf of the appellant that it was\t not\nopen  to  the  government to deny the benefit  of  the\t1967\nMemorandum to those employees who were absorbed prior to the\ndate  of  the Memorandum as it would be arbitrary  and\tthat\nsuch  classification is violative of Articles 14 and  16  of\nthe Constitution.\nOn  behalf  of the respondents, it was\tcontended  that\t the\nrevised retirement benefits were introduced to attract\tmore\nand  more  government servants for permanent  absorption  in\ngovernment  undertakings to build up their cadres, and\tthis\nbeing a new incentive, it has been given effect to from\t the\ndate  of issue of orders and there was nothing arbitrary  or\ndiscriminatory in fixing the cut-off date.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\nHELD  :\t 1.1.  The object of  bringing\tinto  existence\t the\nrevised\t terms and conditions in the Memorandum dated  June,\n16,  1967 was to protect the pensionary benefits  which\t the\nCentral\t  Government  servants\thad  earned   before   their\nabsorption  into the public undertakings.   Restricting\t the\napplicability  of the revised Memorandum only to  those\t who\nare  absorbed  after  the  coming into\tforce  of  the\tsaid\nMemorandum,  would be defeating the very object and  purpose\nof  the revised Memorandum.  The appellant along with  other\nCentral Government employees was sent on foreign service  to\nthe public undertaking in the year 1961.  He was absorbed in\nthe  year  1964.   All\tthose  who  joined  foreign  service\nalongwith  the\tappellant but were absorbed after  June\t 16,\n1967  have  been  given\t the  benefits\tunder  the   revised\nMemorandum.   Denying  the same to the\tappellant  would  be\ncontrary to fairplay and justice.  Assuming that the revised\n1080\nMemorandum  is\tan incentive to attract\t Central  Government\nemployees  to  public undertakings, the persons who  are  so\nattracted  do not become a different class.  They  join\t the\nsame  class to which the persons like the appellant  belong.\nTherefore,  all those Central Government employees who\twere\nabsorbed  in public undertakings either before June  16,1967\nor thereafter and were serving the public undertakings,\t are\nentitled to the benefits provided under the Memorandum dated\nJune 16, 1967.\n[1083G-H; 1084A-B-C]\n1.2. It\t is no doubt correct that the Memorandum dated\tJune\n16,  1967 is prospective which only means that the  benefits\ntherein\t can  be  claimed only\tafter  June,  16,1967.\t The\nMemorandum, however, takes into consideration the past event\nthat  is the period of service under the Central  Government\nfor  the  purpose of giving pro-rata pension.\tWhoever\t has\nrendered  pensionable service prior to coming into force  of\nthe Memorandum would be entitled to claim the benefits under\nthe said Memorandum.  Restricting the benefits only to those\nwho were absorbed in public undertaking after June 16,\t1967\nwould  be  arbitrary and hit by Articles 14 and\t 16  of\t the\nConstitution. [1084E]\n2.   Rule 37 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972\nprovides that a government servant who has been permitted to\nbe  absorbed  in  service in  a\t Central  Government  public\nundertaking  in public interest, be deemed to  have  retired\nfrom  service from the date of such absorption and shall  be\neligible  to receive retirement benefits in accordance\twith\nthe orders of the Government applicable to him.\t  Admittedly\nthe  appellant was permitted to be absorbed in\tthe  Central\nGovernment  public  undertaking\t in  public  interest.\t The\nappellant,  as\tsuch, shall be deemed to have  retired\tfrom\ngovernment  service from the date of his absorption  and  is\neligible to receive the retirement benefits.  It is no doubt\ncorrect that the retirement benefits envisaged under Rule 37\nare  to\t be  determined in accordance  with  the  Government\norders\tbut the plain language of the Rule does\t not  permit\nany  classification while granting the retirement  benefits.\nWhen the Rule specifically provides that all the persons who\nfulfil the pre-conditions prescribed therein shall be deemed\nto  have  retired from government service from the  date  of\nabsorption  and\t shall\tbe eligible  to\t receive  retirement\nbenefits then the government while granting benefits  cannot\ndeny  the  same to some of them on the\tbasis  of  arbitrary\nclassification.\t All those person who fulfil the  conditions\nunder Rule 37 are a class by themselves\n 1081\nand  no\t discrimination\t can be permitted  within  the\tsaid\nclass.\t The government action in restricting  the  benefits\nunder  the  revised Memorandum dated June 16, 1967  only  to\nthose who are absorbed after that date goes contrary to\t the\nRule and cannot be sustained. [1085C-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 666 of 1993.<br \/>\nFrom  the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.1988 of the  Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal, Madras in T.A. No. 12 of 1988.<br \/>\nM.N.  Krishnamani,  T.\tRaja and Pravir\t Choudhary  for\t the<br \/>\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Altaf Ahmad, Addl.  Solicitor General, V.N. Ganpule,  Hemant<br \/>\nSharma and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nKULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Applications for impleadment are allowed.<br \/>\nThe  appellant was in the service of the Central  Government<br \/>\nfor  a\tperiod\tof  about  15  years.\tHe  was\t  thereafter<br \/>\npermanently absorbed in a public undertaking, from where  he<br \/>\nretired\t  on   April  1,  1984.\t  The\tquestion   for\t our<br \/>\nconsideration is whether the appellant on absorption in\t the<br \/>\npublic\tundertaking  was eligible for pro-rata\tpension\t and<br \/>\ndeath-cum-retirement  gratuity\tbased on the length  of\t his<br \/>\nqualifying  service  under the Government till the  date  of<br \/>\nabsorption.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appellant\twas serving the\t Audit\tDepartment  (Defence<br \/>\nService)  of  the Government of India as  Substantive  Upper<br \/>\nDivision  Clerk.  He was sent on foreign service to  Neyveli<br \/>\nLignite\t Corporation  Ltd. (public  sector  undertaking)  on<br \/>\nJanuary\t 9\/10,\t1961.  He was permanently  absorbed  in\t the<br \/>\npublic\tundertaking with effect from August 1, 1964.  It  is<br \/>\nnot  disputed  that  the appellant,  having  joined  Central<br \/>\nGovernment service on July 25, 1949, had completed 15  years<br \/>\nof   pensionable   government-service.\t On  the   date\t  of<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  permanent absorption in the public\t undertaking<br \/>\nthe  retirement benefits were regulated by Memorandum  dated<br \/>\nNovember  10,  1960  issued  by\t the  Ministry\tof   Finance<br \/>\n(Department of Expenditure), New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1082<\/span><\/p>\n<p>According to the said Memorandum the retirement benefits for<br \/>\nservice\t  rendered  by\ta  government  servant\tbefore\t his<br \/>\nabsorption in a public undertaking, were admissible equal to<br \/>\nwhat   the  government\twould  have  contributed   had\t the<br \/>\nindividual  been on contributory provident fund terms,\twith<br \/>\n2%  simple  interest  thereon.\t The  Government  of   India<br \/>\nsubsequently issued Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 providing<br \/>\nrevised terms and conditions of absorption in Central Public<br \/>\nSector Undertakings but restricted the revised benefits only<br \/>\nto those who were absorbed on or after June 1.6, 1967.\t The<br \/>\noperative  features  of\t the revised  instructions  were  as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   A permanent government servant with\t not<br \/>\n\t      less  than  10  years  qualifying\t service  on<br \/>\n\t      absorption in public undertaking was  eligible<br \/>\n\t      for pro-rata pension and\tdeath-cum-retirement<br \/>\n\t      gratuity based on the length of his qualifying<br \/>\n\t      service  under  government till  the  date  of<br \/>\n\t      absorption.  The pension was to be  calculated<br \/>\n\t      on the basis of average emoluments immediately<br \/>\n\t      before absorption.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)The\tpro-rata  pension,  gratuity,\tetc.<br \/>\n\t      admissible in respect of the service  rendered<br \/>\n\t      under the government was disbursable only from<br \/>\n\t      the  date\t the government servant\t would\thave<br \/>\n\t      normally\tsuperannuated  had be  continued  in<br \/>\n\t      service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  appellant retired from the public undertaking on  April<br \/>\n1,  1984.  It is not disputed that on January 15,  1974\t the<br \/>\nappellant was paid a sum of Rs. 3036 as retirement  benefits<br \/>\nin  terms  of the Memorandum dated November 10,\t 1960.\t The<br \/>\nbenefit of the revised terms and conditions of absorption as<br \/>\ncontained  in the Government Memorandum dated June 16,\t1967<br \/>\nwas denied to the appellant on the short ground that he\t was<br \/>\nabsorbed  in  the public undertaking prior to  the  date  of<br \/>\ncoming into force of the said Memorandum.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appellant filed a writ petition tinder Article  226  of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India on October 19, 1984 in the  Madras<br \/>\nHigh  Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents  to<br \/>\ngrant him pro-rata pension and all other benefits admissible<br \/>\nunder  the  revised Memorandum dated June 16, 1967.   As  an<br \/>\ninterim\t measure the High Court directed that the  appellant<br \/>\nbe  paid  50  per cent of the  pro-rata\t pension  and  other<br \/>\npensionary benefits<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 1083<\/span><br \/>\nunder  the Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 from the  date  of<br \/>\nhis absorption in the public undertaking.  The writ petition<br \/>\nwas  transferred  to the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,<br \/>\nMadras.\t  The tribunal by its judgment dated June  14,\t1988<br \/>\ndismissed  the\tapplication and rejected the  claim  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   This appeal by way of special leave is  against<br \/>\nthe judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal.<br \/>\nThe  appellant has questioned the validity of the  condition<br \/>\nimposed\t in  the Memorandum dated June 16, 1967\t making\t the<br \/>\nMemorandum applicable only to such of the employees who\t are<br \/>\nabsorbed  in  the public undertakings on or after  June\t 16.<br \/>\n1967.\tAccording  to the appellant it was not open  to\t the<br \/>\ngovernment  to deny the benefit of the Memorandum  to  those<br \/>\nemployees  who\twere  absorbed\tprior to  the  date  of\t the<br \/>\nMemorandum  as\tit  would  bring  into\texistence  arbitrary<br \/>\nclassification\tin respect of government employees  absorbed<br \/>\nin  the\t public\t undertakings prior to\tJune  16,  1967\t and<br \/>\nthereafter.    The   appellant\thas  contended\t that\tsuch<br \/>\nclassification is not warranted under Articles 14 and 16  of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution as it has no nexus with the object  sought<br \/>\nto be achieved by the government Memorandum.<br \/>\nThe  contention\t of the respondents, on the other  hand,  is<br \/>\nthat  the  revised retirement benefits\twere  introduced  to<br \/>\nattract\t more  and more government  servants  for  permanent<br \/>\nabsorption  in\tgovernment undertakings to  build  up  their<br \/>\ncadres,\t It  was thus an incentive  for\t encarding  suitable<br \/>\npersons\t in the government undertakings.  According  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondents, being a new incentive, it has been given effect<br \/>\nfrom  the  date\t of issue of orders  and  there\t is  nothing<br \/>\narbitrary or discriminatory in fixing the cut-off date.<br \/>\nThere is no dispute that Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. is<br \/>\na  body which is sponsored, financed and controlled  by\t the<br \/>\nCentral Government.  More and more government functions\t are<br \/>\nbeing\tbrought\t under\tthe  government\t  undertakings\t and<br \/>\nautonomous  bodies.   There is\tconsiderable  mobility\tfrom<br \/>\nCentral\t Government Departments to the public  undertakings.<br \/>\nThe object of bringing into existence the revised terms\t and<br \/>\nconditions  in\tthe Memorandum dated June 16,  1967  was  to<br \/>\nprotect the pensionary benefits which the Central Government<br \/>\nservants had earned before their absorption into the  public<br \/>\nundertakings.  Restricting the applicability of the  revised<br \/>\nMemorandum  only to those who are absorbed after the  coming<br \/>\ninto  force of, the said Memorandum, would be defeating\t the<br \/>\nvery object and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1084<\/span><br \/>\nof  the\t revised Memorandum.  It is not\t disputed  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant along with other Central Government employees\t was<br \/>\nsent  on  foreign service to the public undertaking  in\t the<br \/>\nyear  1961.  He was absorbed in the year 1964.\t All  those,<br \/>\nwho  joined on foreign service alongwith the  appellant\t but<br \/>\nwere  absorbed\tafter  June 16, 1967, have  been  given\t the<br \/>\nbenefits under the revised Memorandum.\tDenying the same  to<br \/>\nthe  appellant\twould be contrary to fairplay  and  justice.<br \/>\nAssuming  that\tthe revised Memorandum is  an  incentive  to<br \/>\nattract\t Central  Government employees to  public  undertak-<br \/>\ning,,,\tthe  persons who are so attracted do  not  become  a<br \/>\ndifferent  class.   They join the same class  to  which\t the<br \/>\npersons\t like  the appellant belong.  Therefore,  all  those<br \/>\nCentral\t Government  employees who were absorbed  in  public<br \/>\nundertakings  either before June 16, 1967 or thereafter\t and<br \/>\nwere  serving the public undertakings, are entitled  to\t the<br \/>\nbenefits provided under the Memorandum dated June 1.6, 1967.<br \/>\nWe  do not, also, find substance in the contention that\t the<br \/>\nrevised\t benefits being new it could only be prospective  in<br \/>\noperation  and\tcannot\tbe extended to\temployees  who\twere<br \/>\nabsorbed   earlier.   It  is  no  doubt\t correct  that\t the<br \/>\nMemorandum  dated  June 16, 1967 is prospective\t which\tonly<br \/>\nmeans that the benefit.-, therein can be claimed only  after<br \/>\nJune   16,  1967.   The\t Memorandum,  however,\ttakes\tinto<br \/>\nconsideration  the past event that is the period of  service<br \/>\nunder the Central Government for the purposes of giving pro-<br \/>\nrata  pension.\t Whoever has  rendered\tpensionable  service<br \/>\nprior  to  coming  into force of  the  Memorandum  would  be<br \/>\nentitled  to claim the .benefits under the said\t Memorandum.<br \/>\nRestricting the benefits only to those who were absorbed  in<br \/>\npublic\tundertakings after June 16, 1967 would be  arbitrary<br \/>\nand hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.<br \/>\nWe may examine the claim of the appellant under the  Central<br \/>\nCivil  Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (the Rules).  Rule  37<br \/>\nof the Rules is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8221; A Government servant who has been  permitted<br \/>\n\t      to  be  absorbed in a service or\tpost  in  or<br \/>\n\t      under  a\tcorporation  or\t company  wholly  or<br \/>\n\t      substantially  owned  or\tcontrolled  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      Government or in or under a body controlled or<br \/>\n\t      financed\tby  the Government  shall,  if\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      absorption is declared by the Government to be<br \/>\n\t      in  the  public interest, be  deemed  to\thave<br \/>\n\t      retired from service from the date of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t       1085<\/span><br \/>\n\t      such  absorption\tand  shall  be\teligible  to<br \/>\n\t      receive retirement benefits which he may\thave<br \/>\n\t      elected  or deemed to have elected,  and\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      such date as may be determined, in  accordance<br \/>\n\t      with  the orders of the Government  applicable<br \/>\n\t      to him:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided\t that\tno   declaration   regarding<br \/>\n\t      absorption in the public interest in a service<br \/>\n\t      or post in or under such corporation,  company<br \/>\n\t      or  body\tshall be required in  respect  of  a<br \/>\n\t      Government servant whom the Government may, by<br \/>\n\t      order, declare to be a scientific employee.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Rule  37, thus, provides that a government servant  who\t has<br \/>\nbeen  permitted\t to  be absorbed in  service  in  a  Central<br \/>\nGovernment public undertaking in public interest, be  deemed<br \/>\nto  have  retired  from\t service  from\tthe  date  of\tsuch<br \/>\nabsorption  and\t shall\tbe eligible  to\t receive  retirement<br \/>\nbenefits  in  accordance with the orders of  the  Government<br \/>\napplicable  to him.  It is not disputed that  the  appellant<br \/>\nwas  permitted\tto  be absorbed in  the\t Central  Government<br \/>\npublic\tundertaking in public interest.\t The  appellant,  as<br \/>\nsuch,  shall  be  deemed to  have  retired  from  government<br \/>\nservice\t from the date of his absorption and is eligible  to<br \/>\nreceive\t the  retirement benefits.  It is no  doubt  correct<br \/>\nthat the retirement benefits envisaged under Rule 37 are  to<br \/>\nbe  determined in accordance with the government  order\t but<br \/>\nthe  plain  language  of  the  rule  does  dot\tpermit\t any<br \/>\nclassification while granting the retirement benefits.\tWhen<br \/>\nthe  Rule  specifically provides that all  the\tpersons\t who<br \/>\nfulfil the pre-conditions prescribed therein shall be deemed<br \/>\nto  have  retired from government service from the  date  of<br \/>\nabsorption  and\t shall\tbe eligible  to\t receive  retirement<br \/>\nbenefits then the government while granting benefits  cannot<br \/>\ndeny  the  same to some of them on the\tbasis  of  arbitrary<br \/>\nclassification.\t All those persons who fulfil the conditions<br \/>\nunder\tRule   37  are\ta  class  by   themselves   and\t  no<br \/>\ndiscrimination can be permitted within the said class.\t The<br \/>\ngovernment  action  in restricting the\tbenefits  under\t the<br \/>\nrevised Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 only to those who are<br \/>\nabsorbed  after\t that  date goes contrary to  the  Rule\t and<br \/>\ncannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>We,  therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment  of<br \/>\nthe   Central\tAdministrative\tTribunal  and\tdirect\t the<br \/>\nrespondents to grant pro-rata pension and other benefits  to<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tunder the office Memorandum dated  June\t 16,<br \/>\n1967.  The respondents are directed to finarise the benefits<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1086<\/span><br \/>\nwithin\tthree  months  from today and  all  the\t arrears  of<br \/>\npension etc. shall be paid to the appellant within one month<br \/>\nthereafter with 12% interest.  Any payment already  received<br \/>\nby  the appellant under the interim order of the High  Court<br \/>\nhas  to\t be adjusted.  The appellant shall  be\tentitled  to<br \/>\ncosts which we quantify as Rs. 10,000.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  allow I.A. 4\/91 and direct that the\t applicants  therein<br \/>\nnamely,\t K.B.L.\t Mathur, Jaswant Lal Jetlie  and  C.L.\tSoni<br \/>\nwhose cases are identical to that of the appellant  be\talso<br \/>\ngiven  benefit\tof  the Memorandum dated June  16,  1967  in<br \/>\nsimilar terms as directed by us in respect of the appellant.<br \/>\nThese applicants shall, however, be not entitled to costs.<br \/>\nG.N.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1087<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, &#8230; on 17 February, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (1)1078, 1993 SCC (2) 174 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: T.S. THIRUVENGADAM Vs. RESPONDENT: THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/02\/1993 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, ... on 17 February, 1993 - 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\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, ... on 17 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-27T03:53:12+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, &#8230; on 17 February, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-27T03:53:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1858,\"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\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993\",\"name\":\"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, ... on 17 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-27T03:53:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, &#8230; on 17 February, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, ... on 17 February, 1993 - 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\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, ... on 17 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-27T03:53:12+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, &#8230; on 17 February, 1993","datePublished":"1993-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-27T03:53:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993"},"wordCount":1858,"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\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993","name":"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, ... on 17 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-27T03:53:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-thiruvengadam-vs-the-secretary-to-govt-of-india-on-17-february-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, &#8230; on 17 February, 1993"}]},{"@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\/34147","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=34147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}