{"id":38825,"date":"2002-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002"},"modified":"2015-07-12T08:16:23","modified_gmt":"2015-07-12T02:46:23","slug":"rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 917, 96 (2002) DLT 432, 2003 (1) SLJ 1 Delhi, 2002 (5) SLR 399<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S K Kaul<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S K Kaul<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. With consent of learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties, the petition was taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner<br \/>\nfor declaration of the order of termination of petitioner<br \/>\nfrom service without issuing show cause as void abinitio,<br \/>\nreinstatement of the petitioner with consequential<br \/>\nbenefits and direction of payment of pro-rate pensionary<br \/>\nbenefits to the petitioner. Since the order is of<br \/>\n24.11.1988 after a lapse of 10 years relief in respect of<br \/>\nyear 1998 after a lapse of 10 years relief in respect of<br \/>\nreinstatement and challenge to show cause notice is not<br \/>\npressed. Learned counsel however, contends that insofar<br \/>\nas the grant of pensionary benefits is concerned, the<br \/>\npetitioner cannot be non-suited on the grounds of delay<br \/>\nand cannot be deprived of these pensionary benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on<br \/>\nthe judgment in the case of   Hazara Singh v. Chief of<br \/>\nAir Staff (Delhi)  1982 (1) SLR 521 to contend that if the<br \/>\npower is exercised under Section 18 of the Army act by<br \/>\nthe President of India, then exercise of such power<br \/>\ncannot deny pensionary benefits to the petitioner. There<br \/>\nis no dispute about the fact that the order dated<br \/>\n24.11.1988 has been passed in exercise of power under<br \/>\nSection 18. The order is as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>  The President, in exercise of the<br \/>\npowers conferred by Section 18 of the Army<br \/>\nAct, 1950 and all other enabling<br \/>\nprovisions in this behalf, is pleased to<br \/>\norder that the services of IC-3066L Maj.<br \/>\nRajinder Singh of 252 (I) AD Missible Bty.<br \/>\nshall be terminate  without terminal<br \/>\nbenefits with effect from the date on<br \/>\nwhich he is relieved of his duties.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(emphasis supplied)  <\/p>\n<p> 5. Thus learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\ncontends that the direction in the order that the<br \/>\npetitioner will not be entitled to terminal benefits from<br \/>\nthe date on which he is relieved from duty, cannot be<br \/>\nsustained in view of Hazara Singh&#8217;s case (supra). The<br \/>\nrelevant para from this judgment is as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;10. Now it would be understandable<br \/>\nif as a consequence of court martial or<br \/>\nthe enquiry under the Act and Rules a<br \/>\nperson is dismissed or cashiered, where he<br \/>\nhas had full opportunity to meet the<br \/>\ncharge and to prove his innocence, but has<br \/>\nfailed and thereafter an order forfeiting<br \/>\npension is made. In such a course the<br \/>\nofficer would know the reasons for<br \/>\nproceeding against him and could in answer<br \/>\nto proceedings under Regulation 16(a) show<br \/>\nthat no order of forfeiture or total<br \/>\nforfeiture of pension should be made. But<br \/>\nwhere, as in the present case dismissal is<br \/>\nin exercise of Presidential pleasure under<br \/>\nArticle 310 of constitution read with<br \/>\nSection 18 of the Act, it is apparent that<br \/>\nno reasons will be told or known to the<br \/>\nofficer. In such a case if Regulation<br \/>\n16(a) could be invoked it would virtually<br \/>\namount to condemning and depriving a<br \/>\nperson of his pension without giving him<br \/>\nan opportunity because in such a situation<br \/>\nwhat could, an officer say, in his<br \/>\ndefense, when he does not know the reason<br \/>\nwhy Presidential pleasure has been<br \/>\nwithdrawn from him. These considerations<br \/>\nlead us irresistibly to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat resort could only be had to<br \/>\nRegulation 16(a) if it had been preceded<br \/>\nby an order of dismissal, or cashiering<br \/>\neither in pursuance of a court martial<br \/>\ntrial or in pursuance of an action taken<br \/>\nunder Sections 19 and 20 of the Act and<br \/>\nthe rules. As admittedly none of the<br \/>\neventualities were present the condition<br \/>\nprecedent to taking action under Pension<br \/>\nRegulation 16(a) were lacking. The<br \/>\nrespondents seek to justify the action<br \/>\nunder Regulation 16(a) on the sole ground<br \/>\nof use of the word &#8216;dismissed&#8217; even when<br \/>\nthe order of 21.2.1971 is passed under<br \/>\nSection 18 of the Act. Though the<br \/>\npleasure doctrine is quite all embracing<br \/>\nstill we must not forget that our<br \/>\nconstitution adhors arbitrariness, and<br \/>\nproclaims clearly that it is a government<br \/>\nof laws and not of men that we are having,<br \/>\nso that interpretation which permits an<br \/>\nunfettered way of arbitrary action must<br \/>\nnecessarily receive short shift when<br \/>\ninterpretation of statute is given by the<br \/>\ncourts. We are of the view that the<br \/>\njurisdiction to take action under Pension<br \/>\nRegulation 16(a) arises only when an<br \/>\nofficer has been dismissed or cashiered<br \/>\nas a measure of punishment. Admittedly<br \/>\nthat is not the case in the present<br \/>\ninstance. Thus the President lacked the<br \/>\njurisdiction to proceed against the<br \/>\npetitioner under Pension Regulation 16\n<\/p>\n<p>(a). The impugned order of 4.6.1979 is,<br \/>\ntherefore, without authority of law and<br \/>\ndeserves to be quashed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent on the other hand relied upon the judgment in<br \/>\nthe case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/498194\/\">Union of India v. P.D. Yadav,<\/a> , to contend that such denial of pension is<br \/>\nvalid in law. However, the said judgment deals with a<br \/>\ncase where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated<br \/>\nagainst the officer and in not a case where doctrine of<br \/>\npleasure has been exercised. The law in respect of a<br \/>\ncase where doctrine of pleasure has been invoked is<br \/>\ncrystalised by Division Bench in the case of  Hazara Singh<br \/>\n(Supra). In view thereof the latter portion of the order<br \/>\ndated 24.11.1988 denying the termination benefits to the<br \/>\npetitioner cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Another issued which arises for consideration is<br \/>\nthe delay by the petitioner in approaching this Court.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the petitioner referred to the<br \/>\njudgment of the Supreme Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/594185\/\">M.R. Gupta v. Union<br \/>\nof India and Ors<\/a> 1995 31 ATC 186 where the Supreme has<br \/>\nheld that denial of salary was a continuing wrong and so<br \/>\nlong as if person is in service a fresh cause of action<br \/>\narises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on<br \/>\nthe basis of a wrong computation made contrary to law.<br \/>\nIt was held that claim to be paid during the entire<br \/>\ntenure of service can be exercised at the time of each<br \/>\npayment of the salary when the employee is entitled to<br \/>\nsalary computed correctly in accordance with the rules<br \/>\nand the rule was found to be akin to the right of<br \/>\nredemption which is an incident of subsisting mortgage<br \/>\nand subsists so long as the mortgage subsists unless the<br \/>\nequity of redemption is extinguished. Learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner submits that the same principal would<br \/>\napply in case of pensionary benefits. On the other<br \/>\nhand Ms. Pinki Anand, learned counsel contends that M.R.<br \/>\nGupta&#8217;s case (Supra) deals with a case of a salary and<br \/>\nthat to during the course of employment. Thus on the<br \/>\nground delay and latches the petitioner cannot claim the<br \/>\nbenefit of pension.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. I have considered the rival contentions<br \/>\nadvanced by the learned counsel for the parties.<br \/>\nPensionary benefits accrues from month to month and is<br \/>\nthus analogue to the concept of a salary which a person<br \/>\nwould be entitled during the course of his service. Thus<br \/>\nthe principal laid down in M.R. Gupta&#8217;s case (supra),<br \/>\nwould apply to the case where the claim is of pension.<br \/>\nThus, if a person approaches the Court belatedly, the<br \/>\nsame cannot be held against him in denying the benefits<br \/>\nof pension at least from the period he approached the Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that since<br \/>\nthe petitioner approached this Court on 15th December,<br \/>\n1998, the petitioner would be entitled to the pensionary<br \/>\nbenefits for the period commencing from 15th December,<br \/>\n1995 i.e., from three years prior to approaching the<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. In view of the aforesaid the petitioner would<br \/>\nben entitled to the pensionary benefits with effect from<br \/>\n15th December, 1995. I am also not agreeable to give the<br \/>\ninterest on the past amount to the petitioner, in view of<br \/>\npetitioner having approached the Court so belatedly. The<br \/>\narrears of the pensionary benefits be paid to the<br \/>\npetitioner by the respondents within a period of two<br \/>\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Petitioner stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.<br \/>\nParties are left to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 917, 96 (2002) DLT 432, 2003 (1) SLJ 1 Delhi, 2002 (5) SLR 399 Author: S K Kaul Bench: S K Kaul JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule. 2. With consent of learned counsel [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002 - 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\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-12T02:46:23+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\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T02:46:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1341,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002\",\"name\":\"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T02:46:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002 - 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\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-12T02:46:23+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\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T02:46:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002"},"wordCount":1341,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002","name":"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T02:46:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 January, 2002"}]},{"@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\/38825","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=38825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}