{"id":46571,"date":"2001-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001"},"modified":"2017-07-07T18:13:21","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T12:43:21","slug":"subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001","title":{"rendered":"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001<\/div>\n
Bench: M.B. Shah, R.P. Sethi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (civil)  372 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nSUBRATA SEN AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. SHAH & R.P. SETHI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2001 Supp(3) SCR 140<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
SHAH, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is
\nfiled by the petitioners who were employees of the Indian Oil Corporation
\nLimited (Assam Oil Division) and retired prior to 1st December 1994. It is
\npointed out that Assam Oil Division was formed by transfer of the
\nUndertaking of the Assam Oil Co. Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the Burmah Oil
\nCompany which has been nationalized w.e.f. 14.10. 1981. Petitioners were
\ntransferred from Assam Oil Co. Limited to the Indian Oil Corporation –
\nAssam Oil Division (In short” AOD”), As per the Assam Oil Company Staff
\nPension Fund Scheme, they were getting pension on the following basis :\n<\/p>\n
“A sum equal to 40 percent of the average annual basic salary for the last
\nfive years of service immediately preceding the date of retirement”\n<\/p>\n
It is pointed out that the Government of India has issued Notification
\ndated 10.3.1995 providing for revision of pension formula in respect of
\nIndian Oil Corporation (AOD) Officers covered by AOD Staff Pension Scheme
\nwhich reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“Pension for the officers retiring from December, 1994, onwards may be
\ncomputed on the basis of 40% of the average of the last 10 months salary
\nincluding averages dearness allowance drawn by the officer over the last 10
\nmonths of his service. If and when pay revision take place retrospectively,
\nthe amount of pension may be adjusted accordingly. No dearness allowance
\nwill be paid on pension.”\n<\/p>\n
Petitioners submit that the cut-off date is discriminatory and that there
\ncannot be any classification of retiree who have retired prior to December,
\n1994 and who are to retire from December, 1994 onwards and, therefore, they
\nare entitled to have pension on the basis of revised formula. For this,
\nthey have relied on the decision rendered by this Court in D.S. Nakara v.
\nUnion of India,<\/a> [1983] 1 SCC 305. In this petition, they have prayed as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
(a)    Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari of any
\nother appropriate writ, direction of order quashing the cut off date
\nmentioned in the impugned communication No. F. No. F.29011\/1\/95-IOC dated
\n10.3.1995 (Annexure ‘E’), as December, 1994 as having been arbitrarily
\nfixed; and<\/p>\n
(b)    Issue a writ, direction of order in the nature of mandamus or any
\nother appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents directing
\nthem to extend benefits of the impugned communication No. F. No.
\n29011\/1\/95-IOC dated 10.3.1995 to all the pensioners of IOC (AOD)
\nirrespective of date of retirement.\n<\/p>\n
(c)    Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any
\nother appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to
\nliberalize the AOC Pension Scheme so as to include the Ad hoc Pension
\nRelief to all retirees and who are still in service and to superannuate
\nunder the AOC Pension Scheme as is being granted to the ex-employees of AOC
\nwho stood transferred to OIL;\n<\/p>\n
(d)    Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any
\nother appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to
\nliberalize the AOC Pension Scheme so as to include the benefits of the CLI
\nlinked Pension Relief to all retirees and who are still in service and to
\nsuperannuate under the AOC Pension Scheme, as in being granted to the
\neligible pensioners of OIL, BPCL and HPCL;\n<\/p>\n
(e)    Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any
\nother appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to
\nliberalize the pension scheme of the respondent no. 2 so as to include the
\nbenefit of restoration of the commuted portion of pension after 15 years as
\nis being granted to the sister companies of the respondent no. 2 i.e. BPCL
\nand HPCL.\n<\/p>\n
At the outset, we may state that Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel for
\nthe petitioners has not pressed for prayer (c) and with regard to prayers\n<\/p>\n
(d) and (e) as they involve disputed questions of fact, the issues are not
\nrequired to be decided and are left open. In affidavit-in-reply filed on
\nbehalf of respondent No. 2 also it has been submitted that it would have
\nbeen appropriate for the petitioners to approach the High Court for sorting
\nout the disputed facts. For the said reliefs, it would be open to the
\npetitioners to approach the competent forum.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Raj Birbal, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 Indian Oil
\nCorporation submitted that in the present case there is no question of
\napplying the principles laid down in Nakara ‘s case. It is his submission
\nthat petitioners were governed by the non-contributory Pension Scheme,
\nnamely, IOC (DOD) -Staff Pension Fund approved under the Income Tax Act,
\n1961. Under the Rules of the Pension Fund, annuity is purchased by the
\ntrustees in respect of such members on their retirement\/death from LIC and
\npension is paid by the LIC. The right of and to receive the annuity and the
\nquantum gets crystallized at the time of purchase of the annuity. It is
\nalso pointed out that an improvement in the pension scheme in an approved
\nPension Fund is effected on the basis of the fund’s financial position as
\ndetermined by actuarial valuation based on current resources of the fund
\nand future contribution to be received by the fund only in respect of the
\nexisting members in service.\n<\/p>\n
On the question as to when retired employees are entitled to the benefit of
\nrevised pension scheme, this Court after considering earlier decisions in
\nV. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and Another,<\/a>
\n[1998] 8 SCC 30 specified two categories as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Category-I<\/p>\n
Para 22. If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his
\nretirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the
\nrelevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension
\nor would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of
\ncomputation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be
\nentitled lo get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date
\nof such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners
\nwhen the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a
\nsituation, the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners
\ncannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date
\non which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members
\nof the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme
\ngranting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line
\nof decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara case would cover
\nthis category of cases<\/p>\n
Category-II<\/p>\n
Para 23. However, if an employee at the time of his retirement is not
\neligible for earning pension and stands outside the class of pensioners, if
\nsubsequently by amendment of the relevant pension rules any beneficial
\numbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners
\nand when such a subsequent scheme comes into force, the erstwhile non-
\npensioner might have survived, then only if such extension of pension
\nscheme to erstwhile non-pensioners is expressly made retrospective by the
\nauthorities promulgating such scheme; the erstwhile non-pensioner who has
\nretired prior to the advent of such extended pension scheme can claim
\nbenefit of such a new extended pension scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners would be
\ncovered by the Category (1) and would be entitled to get pension under the
\nrevised pension scheme.\n<\/p>\n
As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there
\nis a third category wherein the pension is paid from pension fund scheme
\nand on the date of retirement, right to receive the pension amount is
\ncrystallized. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to get benefit of
\nsubsequent modification with respect to determinative factor for grant of
\npension such as qualifying service.\n<\/p>\n
For appreciating this contention, we would refer to the averments made in
\nthe affidavit-in-reply and the relevant rules which provided for grant of
\npension to the petitioners. In the affidavit-in-reply, it has been stated
\nthat petitioners were part of the group which came from erstwhile Assam Oil
\nCompany and are getting pension on the basis of non-contributory pension
\nscheme, i.e. “they do not contribute at all and are getting the pension on
\nmonth to month basis and on the other hand, the other employees of
\nrespondent no. 2 only get the benefit of contributory scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
From the aforesaid admission, it is clear that petitioners were not
\nrequired to contribute any amount for getting pension. May be that the
\nCompany allocated separate fund and created a trust for paying pension to
\nthe retiring employees but their right to get pension is crystallized as
\nper the rules and was not dependent upon availability of the fund and was
\nto be determined on the basis of a rule which provided that they would get
\na sum equal to 40 percent of the average basic salary for the last five
\nyears of service immediately preceding the date of retirement.\n<\/p>\n
For this purpose, we would refer to relevant part of the rules of Assam Oil
\nStaff Pension Fund, which read thus :\n<\/p>\n
“1.   The following employees shall be Members of the Fund :\n<\/p>\n
(b) Persons who enter into a specified category of service with the Company
\nas detailed hereinafter the 1st day of January, 1973 and who are members of
\nthe Burmah Oil (India) Provident Fund or Provident & Insurance Fund (India)
\nRecognised.\n<\/p>\n
2. A Pension will be granted to a Member on retirement from the Service at
\nor after Normal Pension Age provided that at the date of such retirement:\n<\/p>\n
(i)     he has completed at least fifteen years of Pensionable Service;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)    he shall have been a member of the Provident Fund continuously of
\nnot less than ten years.\n<\/p>\n
The pension payable to such a Member:\n<\/p>\n
(a)      who has completed at least twenty years’ Pensionable Service will
\nbe the Basic Figure as reduced by the Authorised Deduction; or<\/p>\n
(b)     who has completed at least fifteen years’ Pensionable Service but
\nless than twenty years’ Pensionable Service will be a proportion of the
\nBasic Figure equal to the ratio which the number of years of Pensionable
\nService (calculated to the nearer month) bears to twenty years and the
\namount so calculated will be reduced by the Authorised Deduction.\n<\/p>\n
8.       The Trustees may at the request of the Employer withhold or
\ndiscontinue a pension or annuity or any part thereof payable to a Member or
\nhis Dependents or exclude him or them from all or any benefits hereunder if
\nsuch Member is dismissed for fraud or dishonesty or Misconduct or leaves
\nhis employment without the consent of the Employer or having left such
\nemployment acts to the detriment of such employer’s interest of assigns or
\ncharges his rights hereunder or attempts to do so. Any sum so withheld
\ndiscontinued or excluded shall be forfeited to the Fund.\n<\/p>\n
9.       No person shall be entitled to transfer or assign whether by way
\nof security or otherwise however his interest or any part thereof in the
\nFund and no such transfer or assignment shall be valid and neither the
\nEmployers nor the Trustees shall recognise or be bound by notice to them
\nrespectively of any such transfer or assignment.\n<\/p>\n
10.     Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Rules contained:\n<\/p>\n
(a) (b)<\/p>\n
(c) All pensions and allowances shall be non-assignable and (subject to the
\nprovisions of Rule 4) non-commutable and shall be paid monthly in advance
\nwithout a proportion to the date of cessation or at the discretion of the
\nTrustees at longer intervals and at such times at such places and in such
\nmanner and subject to such evidence of health, age survival, marital
\nstatus, educational status and identity as the Trustees may prescribe.”\n<\/p>\n
Under Rule 16 “Basic Figure” means a sum equal to forty per centam of the
\nMember’s average annual Basic Salary for the last five years of Service
\nimmediately preceding the date of retirement. Likewise, “Normal Pension
\nAge” means the fifty-fifth birthday for men and the forty-fifth birthday
\nfor women.\n<\/p>\n
Keeping in mind the aforesaid rules, we would first refer to the contention
\nof Mr. B.A. Mohanty and Mr. Raj Birbal, learned senior counsel for Union of
\nIndia and respondent No. 2 respectively who, in support of their
\nsubmissions, relied upon paragraph 45 of the judgment in Nakara’s case,
\nwhich reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“45. Let us clear one misconception. The pension scheme including the
\nliberalised scheme available to the government employees is non-
\ncontributory in character. It was not pointed out that there is something
\nlike a pension fund …. The payment of pension is a statutory liability
\nundertaken by the Government and whatever becomes due and payable is
\nbudgeted for. One could have appreciated this line of reasoning where there
\nis a contributory scheme and a pension fund from which alone pension is
\ndisbursed. That being not the case, there is no question of pensioners
\ndividing the pension fund which, if more persons are admitted to the
\nscheme, would pro-rata affect the share.”\n<\/p>\n
In our view the aforesaid para does not in any way support the contention
\nof the respondents. On the contrary, on parity of reasoning, we would also
\nreiterate that let us be clear about this misconception. Firstly, the
\nPension Scheme including the liberalised scheme available to the employees
\nis non-contributory in character. Payment of pension does not depend upon
\nPension Fund. It is the liability undertaken by the Company under the Rules
\nand whenever becomes due and payable is to be paid. As observed in Nakara
\n‘s case (supra), pension is neither a bounty, nor a matter of grace
\ndepending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex-gratia payment. It
\nis a payment for the past services rendered. It is a social welfare measure
\nrendering socio-economic justice ,to those who in the hey-day of their life
\nceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age
\nthey would not be left in lurch. May be that in the present case, the Trust
\nfor pension fund is created for Income Tax purposes of for smooth payment
\nof pension, but that would not affect the liability of employer to pay
\nmonthly pension calculated as per the Rules on retirement from service and
\nthis retirement benefit is not based on availability of pension fund. There
\nis no question of pensioners dividing the Pension Fund or affecting the
\npro-rata share on addition of new members to the Scheme. As per Rule (1)
\nquoted above, an employee would become member of the Fund as soon as enters
\ninto a specified category of service of the Company. Under Rule (8)
\nTrustees may withhold or discontinue a pension or annuity or any part
\nthereof payable to a member or his dependants, and that pension amount is
\nnon-assignable. Further, the payment of pension was the liability of the
\nemployer as per the rules and that liability is required to be discharged
\nby the UOI in lieu of its taking over of the Company. The rights of the
\nemployees (including retired) are protected under Section 11 of the Burmah
\nOil Company (Acquisition of Shares of Oil India (Act 41) Limited and of the
\nUndertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil
\nCompany (India Trading) Limited Act, 1981.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his contention that petitioners are not entitled to get
\nbenefit of revised scheme, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2,
\nfurther, relied upon the decision of this Court in Sasadhar Chakravarty and
\nAnr. v. Union of India and Ors.,<\/a> [1996] 11 SCC 1, wherein the Court
\nconsidered the Indian Oxygen Ltd. Staff Pension Fund and the Pension Scheme
\nthereunder. It was the contention of the petitioners that improvements made
\nin the existing pension scheme after retirement of. employees should also
\nbe made available to such retired employees who are the existing pensioners
\nof the Fund. Negativing the said contention, the Court held thus :\n<\/p>\n
“…..This contention is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the
\nannuity which is purchased in respect of each employee as under when he
\nretires. The right of an employee to receive the annuity and the quantum of
\nthis annuity gets determined at the time when the annuity is purchased. Any
\nsubsequent improvements in a given Pension Fund Scheme would not be
\navailable to those persons whose rights are already crystallized under the
\nannuity scheme by which they are governed because the amounts contributed
\nby the employer in respect of such persons are already withdrawn from the
\nPension Fund to purchase an annuity. Any subsequent improvement in the
\nPension Fund will benefit only those whose moneys form a part of the
\nPension Fund.”\n<\/p>\n
In paragraph 11, the Court further observed :\n<\/p>\n
“In these circumstances the ratio of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,<\/a> [1983]
\n1 SCC 305 cannot be applied to extend the benefit of improvement in the
\npension schemes of such funds to the existing pensioners. By the very
\nnature of this scheme, such benefits are available only to members in
\nservice. In the present case, the Pension Fund is created out of
\ncontributions made by the employer in respect of is employees who are in
\nservice in the manner provided under the Income Tax Act and the Rules. The
\ncontribution is in the form of a fixed percentage of salary of each of the
\nemployees. There is, therefore, no provision for an employer making any
\nadditional payment in respect of its past employees who are the existing
\npensioners. In Nakara case the increase in pension could be met from the
\ngeneral revenue of the Central Government. No such reserve of funds is
\navailable to the trustees of an approved superannuation fund.”\n<\/p>\n
In our view, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the
\npresent case. In the said case, Indian Oxygen Ltd. had set up a ‘non-
\ncontributory Superannuation fund’ known as the Indian Oxygen Ltd. Executive
\nStaff Pension Fund. As per the Rules, an employee was entitled to receive
\nan annuity under a policy purchased by the trustee of the Fund from the
\nLife Insurance Corporation of India. Petitioners in that case contended
\nthat the scheme of such non-contributory approved superannuation fund
\nshould be modified so as to provide for disbursement of pension by the fund
\nthemselves or in the alternative by a statutory body to be newly
\nconstituted under a new scheme. Further, the Fund was constituted for the
\npurpose of providing an annuity to the beneficiaries and the trustees were
\nrequired to accumulate the contribution in respect of each beneficiary and
\npurchase an annuity from the Life Insurance Corporation of India at the
\ntime of retirement or death of each employee or on his becoming
\nincapacitated prior to retirement as per Rule 89(2) of the Income Tax
\nRules, 1962. Therefore, when an employee retired; all accumulated
\ncontribution in respect of employee concerned made by the employer to the
\npension fund of the trust was crystallized for the benefit of employee. In
\nthat set of circumstances, the Court observed that the right of the
\nemployee to receive the annuity and quantum of his annuity gets
\ncrystallized at the time of purchase of annuity under the then existing
\nscheme of Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Court also observed that
\nthe contention was based on misunderstanding of the nature of the annuity
\nwhich is purchased in the interest of each employee as and when he retires.
\nThe position in the present case is altogether different. Right to get
\npension is obviously different from getting annuity on the basis of
\naccumulated contribution. The rules for grant of pension provide that an
\nemployee mentioned in specified category shall automatically be member of
\npension fund and is entitled to get pension on the date of his retirement.
\nAmount of pension is to be determined as per the Rules. That Rule is
\nmodified and the petitioners seek relief on the basis of the amended rule
\non the ground that there cannot be any discrimination between the employees
\nwho retired prior to or after a particular date, as held in Nakara ‘s case
\nwhich is followed by this Court in various decisions including V. Kasturi
\n(Supra). Further, there, is no question of pensioners (retired employees)
\ndividing the pension fund and\/ or payment of pension to be made only from
\nthe pension fund. The liability to pay pension arises because of provision
\nmade in the rules. In this view of the matter, the decision in Sasadhar
\nChakravarty (Supra) would have no bearing.\n<\/p>\n
Further, in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of
\nIndia,<\/a> [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 661, Ahmadi J., (as he then was) speaking for the
\nCourt in the aforesaid decision highlighted the observations in Nakara’s
\ncase found at p.333 para 46 to the following effect (SCC p. 674 para 7):\n<\/p>\n
“… the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula
\nenacted in the liberalised pension scheme and effective from the date the
\nrevised scheme comes into force. And beware that it is not a new scheme, it
\nis only a revision of existing scheme. It is not a new retiral benefit. It
\nis an upward revision of an existing benefit. If it was a wholly new
\nconcept, a new retiral benefit, one could have appreciated an argument that
\nthose who had already retired could not expect it.”\n<\/p>\n
The Court further observed :\n<\/p>\n
“…..It must be realised that in the case of an employee governed by the
\nCPF (Contributory Provident Fund) scheme his relations with the employer
\ncome to an end on his retirement and receipt of the CPF amount but in the
\ncase of an employee governed under the pension scheme his relations with
\nthe employer merely undergo a change but do not snap altogether. That is
\nthe reason why this Court in Nakara case drew a distinction between
\nliberalisation of an existing benefit and introduction of a totally new
\nscheme. In the case of pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension
\nperiodically as the continuous fall in the rupee value and the rise in
\nprices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension
\namount but that is not the case of employees governed under the CPF scheme,
\nsince they had received the lump sum payment which they were at liberty to
\ninvest in a manner that would yield optimum return which would take care of
\nthe inflationary trends. This distinction between those belonging to the
\npension scheme and those belonging to the CPF scheme has been rightly
\nemphasised by this Court in Krishena case.”\n<\/p>\n
Same is the position in the present case. As observed in the aforesaid
\ncase, in case of an employee governed under the Pension Scheme, relations
\nwith the employer merely undergo a change, but are not snapped altogether.
\nThere is no new scheme of payment pension, but it is only a revision of the
\nexisting pension scheme. Under the new Pension Scheme, pension is required
\nto be paid on the basis of 40 per cent of the average of the last 10 months
\nsalary including average dearness allowance drawn by the officer over the
\nlast 10 months of his service instead of earlier 40 per cent of the average
\nannual basic salary for the last five years of service immediately
\npreceding the date of retirement.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the aforesaid legal position, this petition is required to be
\npartly allowed and the Respondents are directed to give pensionary benefits
\nto the petitioners on the basis of notification dated 10th March, 1995 by
\ndeleting the Words “retiring from December, 1994 onwards” from the said
\nnotification. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall
\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001 Bench: M.B. Shah, R.P. Sethi CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 372 of 1999 PETITIONER: SUBRATA SEN AND ORS. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/2001 BENCH: M.B. SHAH & R.P. SETHI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2001 […]<\/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-46571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSubrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-07T12:43:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T12:43:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3946,\"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\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001\",\"name\":\"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T12:43:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-07T12:43:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001","datePublished":"2001-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T12:43:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001"},"wordCount":3946,"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\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001","name":"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T12:43:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrata-sen-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-18-september-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subrata Sen And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 September, 2001"}]},{"@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\/46571","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=46571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}