{"id":47576,"date":"1991-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991"},"modified":"2018-08-23T04:41:10","modified_gmt":"2018-08-22T23:11:10","slug":"state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991","title":{"rendered":"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (1) 517, \t 1991 SCC Supl. (1) 138<\/div>\n
Author: M Fathima Beevi<\/div>\n
Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDEBDAS KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/02\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\nBENCH:\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 SCR  (1) 517\t  1991 SCC  Supl.  (1) 138\n JT 1991 (2)\t36\t  1991 SCALE  (1)271\n\n\nACT:\n   West\t Bengal\t Services (Revision of\tPay  and  Allowance)\nRules\t1970-Schedule  I,  Part-B  and\tNotification   dated\nNovember  19,  1974  sub-para  (ii) of Part  IV\t 3  `Diploma\nholders\t in  engineering'-Whether  to  be   termed  as\tSub-\nAssistant  Engineers and given the benefit of the  post\t and\npay scale.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  respondents  in these appeals are  diploma  holder\nengineers  employed  in\t the  various  departments  of\t the\nGovernment     of    West    Bengal\tas     Operator-cum-\nmechanics\/Electricians etc. in the pay scale of\t Rs.230-425.\nConsequent  upon  the  amendment  of  West  Bengal  Services\n(Revision   of\t Pay  and  Allowances)\tRules,\t 1970\tthe\nrespondents  filed  writ petitions before  the\tHigh   Court\nclaiming  that by virtue of sub-para (ii) of Para IV of\t the\nNotification  dated 19.11.74 they are to be termed  as\tSub-\nAssistant  Engineers and given the benefit of that post\t and\nscale  of  pay of Rs.300-600, as they  are  diploma  holders\nin  engineers.\tIt was asserted by them that the benefit  of\nthe  said Notification had been given to similarly  situated\npersons in the other department of the State Government\t but\nthey  had  been\t subjected to  discriminatory  treatment  by\ndenying\t to  them   those benefits.   The  State  Government\ncontended before the High Court that sub-para  (ii) Para  IV\nof  the notification applied only to  Overseers,  Estimators\nand  Sub-Overseers  already  working in\t the  pay  scale  of\nRs.300-600  and not  to\t Operator-cum-Mechanics\/Electricians\netc.  whose scale of pay was Rs.230-425.  According  to\t the\nState, the said Notification  was intended merely to  change\nthe designation of various technicians and engineers  having\nidentical  scale of pay Rs.300-600 to secure  uniformity  of\ndesignation  of those employees and since   the\t recruitment\nqualification  of  the respondents was much  less  than\t the\ndiploma\t in  engineering,  they\t were  not  entitled  to  be\nredesignated  as  Sub-Assistant\t Engineers.   The   learned\nsingle\tJudge of the High Court allowed the  writ  petitions\nholding\t that  the case of the respondents fell\t within\t the\npurview\t of  the November 1974 notification  and  they\twere\nentitled to be termed as Sub-Assistant Engineers.  The State\nGovernment preferred an appeal against the said order before\nthe  Division Bench.  The Division Bench of the High  Court,\nthough\t held  that  sub-para  (ii)  of\t para  IV   of\t the\nNotification  dated 19.11.1974 could not be\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    518\nconstrued\tto\tinclude\t     the       Operator-cum-\nMechanics\/Electricians,\t who were drawing  the pay scale  of\nRs.230-425, dismissed the appeals with the observation\tthat\nthe  respondents\/writ petitioners should have been  admitted\nto  the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.300-600\tlong  before\nothers\tholding\t the same position as the  writ\t petitioners\nhad been granted the\t benefits.  The State Government has\nnow filed these appeals after obtaining special leave.\n     Dismissing the appeals, this Court,\n     HELD:  The reasons for amending the 1970 Rules  by\t the\nNotifications\tdated  11.3.1974  and  19.11.1974  was\t the\ndecision  of the Government to remove the anomalies  in\t the\nexisting rule so as to attract men of quality and also\twith\na view to remove frustration among those having\t specialised\nknowledge of a technical nature.[525C-D]\n     The  persons  brought  under  the\tcategory  of  `other\ndiploma\t holder engineers' can only be the persons like\t the\nOperator-Cum-Mechanic\/Electrician    with      diploma\t  in\nengineering  and  working  in  various\tdepartments  in\t the\nEngineering Service. [525F]\n     Clause (iv) of Para IV of the Notification which states\nthat  Gazetted\tstatus is conferred on the  members  of\t the\nSubordinate  Engineering  Services  and\t all   sub-Assistant\nEngineers also relates to these two categories, that is, the\nOverseers,  Sub-Overseers  and Estimators  who\tare  already\nmembers\t of  the  Subordinate Engineering  Service  and\t the\n`other diploma holder engineers' now termed as Sub-Assistant\nEngineering. [525G-H]\n     There  is a concurrent finding that  these\t respondents\nhave  been discriminated and the State Government had  acted\narbitrarily   without  any  rational  basis  by\t  conferring\nbenefits of the Notification to 17 other employees in  other\ndepartments  while  denying the said benefits  to  the\tsaid\nrespondents in the Agriculture Department.[526E]\n     Chief  Secretary  to Government of A.P.  v.  Cornelius,\n[1981] 2 SCR 930; State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh,<\/a>  [1963]\nSupp.2 SCR 169, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 1196 of
\n1986 with 830 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  19.4.1985  of\t the
\nCalcutta
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       519<\/span>
\nHigh Court in F.M.A.T.Nos. 153 of 1980 and 326 of 1983.\n<\/p>\n
     N.S.  Hegde, Additional Solicitor General,\t Tapas\tRay,
\nD.K. Sinha, J.R.Das and D.N. Mukherjee for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     P.P.   Rao,   A.K.\t Ganguli,   Ajit   Chakraborty,\t  A.
\nMariarputham. Mridula Ray, A. D. Sikri and B.B. Tawakley for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FATHIMA BEEVI, J. The West Bengal Services (Revision of
\nPay and allowance) Rules, 1970, (hereinafter referred to  as
\n1970  Rules), issued in exercise of the power  conferred  by
\nthe  proviso  to Article 309 of the Constitution  of  India,
\nvide  Notification No. 5212.F dated 30th December,  1970  on
\nthe basis of the Pay Commission Report specified the revised
\nscales\tof  pay\t of  the  government  employees\t in  various
\ndepartments with effect from 1st April, 1970.  Schedule I of
\nthe 1970 Rules relates to services generally.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Government of West Bengal issued Notification\t No.
\n10303.F dated 19th November, 1974, amending the 1970  Rules.
\nThe Notification material for the purpose of these cases  is
\nset out below:\n<\/p>\n
\t “NOTIFICATION
\n\t No. 10303.F,\t       Dated the 19th November, 1974.
\n\t In exercise of the powers conferred by the  proviso
\n\t to  Article 309 of the Constitution of\t India,\t the
\n\t Governor  is pleased to direct that  the  following
\n\t amendment shall be made in the West Bengal Services
\n\t (Revision  of\tPay  and  Allowance)  Rules,   1970,
\n\t Published with Finance Department Notification\t No.
\n\t 5212,F,  dated the 30th December. 1970, as  amended
\n\t from time to time, namely:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     AMENDMENTS
\n\t In  Schedule  I,  Part-B, to the  said\t rules,\t the
\n\t following amendments shall be made:\n<\/p>\n
\t 1.  In\t the  cadre  of\t Assistant  Engineers  under
\n\t different  Departments, the Intermediate  Selection
\n\t Grade\tshall be at 15 per cent of the Cadre in\t the
\n\t scale as shown in Column (3) of the Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t     520<\/span><\/p>\n
\t II. In departments\/offices having services\/posts as
\n\t shown in Column (i) in the scale as shown in Column
\n\t (2) of the Schedule, there shall be no Intermediate
\n\t or New Selection Grade as the case may be at 10 per
\n\t cent of the services\/posts (except in the cadre  of
\n\t Assistant Engineer) in the scale as shown in Column
\n\t (3) of the Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
\t III.  From  1st August 1974,  the  New\/Intermediate
\n\t Selection  Grade  shall be raised to 15  per  cent,
\n\t from 10 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t IV.  (i) Sub-Assistant Engineers having Engineering
\n\t Degree shall have an initial start in the  existing
\n\t scale\tof  Rs.300-600 at the stage  of\t Rs.360\t per
\n\t month.\t  They\twill  also get the  benefit  of\t age
\n\t relaxation  for direct recruitment  either  through
\n\t the   Public  Service\tCommission or for   ad\t hoc
\n\t appointments.\n<\/p>\n
\t (ii)  All Test Relief Overseers and  other  diploma
\n\t holder Engineers will\thenceforth be termed as Sub-
\n\t Assistant Engineers.\n<\/p>\n
\t (iii) Sub-Assistant Engineers with L.E.E. who\thave
\n\t supervisor’s\tlicence\t  from\tthe   Commerce\t and
\n\t Industries Department will get a qualification\t pay
\n\t of Rs.50 per month.\n<\/p>\n
\t (iv)  Gazetted\t status is hereby conferred  on\t the
\n\t members of the Subordinate Engineering Service\t and
\n\t all Sub-Assistant Engineers.\n<\/p>\n
\t V. The existing scale, namely Rs.375-10-415-15-610-
\n\t 20-650\t prescribed  for  the members  of  the\tnon-
\n\t gazetted  Health Service having M.B.B.S., or M.M.F.
\n\t qualifications shall be changed to Rs.\t 375-10-415-
\n\t 15-610-20-650\t(E.B.  after 8th  and  18th  stages)
\n\t higher initial start at Rs.450.\n<\/p>\n
\t VI.  All  Licentiate Medical Officers in  the\tWest
\n\t Bengal\t Health\t Service  (Non-Gazetted)  who\thave
\n\t completed 10 years of service shall be eligible for
\n\t appointment  in  the  West Bengal  Health   Service
\n\t (Gazetted)  within the existing cadre\tstrength  of
\n\t the  basic grade provided they are  found  suitable
\n\t for the basic grade in consultation with the Public
\n\t Service Commission.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t      521<\/span><\/p>\n
\t VII.  The   New or  Intermediate  Selection  Grades
\n\t sanctioned above shall be admissible after 10 years
\n\t of service in the grade next below.\n<\/p>\n
\t  VIII.\t Unless\t otherwise stated above and  in\t the
\n\t Schedule; these amendments shall be deemed to\thave
\n\t come into effect from 1st day of March, 1974.
\n\t IX.   The Notifications bearing No. 2194.F,  2195.F
\n\t and  2197,  dated  the\t 11th  March,  1974,   stand
\n\t cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
\t X.  No prior consultations with the Public  Service
\n\t Commission   shall   be   necessary   for    making
\n\t appointments  to New\/Intermediate Selection  Grades
\n\t sanctioned in this Notification.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  said\tNotification  contained\t a  Schedule.\t The
\nrelevant  items\t dealing  with Engineering  is\tprovided  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    SCHEDULE
\n_______________________________________________________________
\n     Service\/\t       Existing scale\t       New\/Intermediate
\n     Posts\t       Rs.\t\t       Selection
\n\t\t\t\t\t       Grade Rs.\n<\/p>\n
________________________________________________________________\n<\/p>\n
1.  Engineering
\n    Services\/Posts.\n<\/p>\n
 i) Assistant\t   475-30-685-35-1000-\t 825-50-875-60-1415.\n<\/p>\n
    Engineer\t   50-1150, with selec-\n\t\t   tion grade for 5 per\n\t\t   cent of the cadre on\n\t\t   1150-50-1350.\nii) Executive\t   825-50-875-\t\t   1535-60-1775.\n    Engineer\t   60-1475.\niii) Sub-Assistant  300-10-430-15-600\t    560-20-700-25-\n     Engineer\t    with higher initial\t    825(a).\n\t\t    start at Rs. 330\/-.\n<\/pre>\n
____________________________________________________________
\n     The  respondents in Civil Appeal No. 1196 of  1986\t and
\nthe  respondents  in the other Civil Appeal arising  out  of
\nS.L.P. (Civil) No. 5298 of 1987 are diploma holder engineers
\nemployed in various
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       522<\/span>
\ndepartments of the Government of West Bengal in the post  of
\nOperator-cum-Mechanics\/Electricians etc. in the scale of pay
\nof  Rs.230-425.\t These respondents filed two writ  petitions
\nbearing No. C.R.. Nos. 6053 (W) of 1978 and C.R.  No.6593(W)
\nof 1978 before the High Court of Calcutta, claiming that  by
\nvirtue\tof sub-para (ii) of Para IV of the Notification\t No.
\n10303.F dated 19th November, 1974, the writ petitioners\t who
\nare diploma holders in engineering are to be termed as\tSub-
\nAssistant  Engineers and given the benefit of that post\t and
\nthe  scale of pay of Rs.300-600.  They contended inter\talia
\nthat the benefit of the aforesaid Notification was given  to
\nsimilarly situated persons in the  other deparptments of the
\nGovernment of West Bengal and the writ petitioners  employed
\nin   the  Agriculture  Department  had\tbeen  subjected\t  to
\ndiscriminatory treatment.\n<\/p>\n
     The  State Government contended before the\t High  Court
\nthat  sub-para\t(ii)  of Para IV of  the  said\tNotification
\napplies only to the Overseers, Estimators and  Sub-Overseers
\nalready\t holding the scale of pay of Rs.300-600 and  not  to
\nOperator-cum-Mechanics\/Electricians   etc.like\t the\twrit
\npetitioners whose scale of pay is Rs.230-425.  According  to
\nthe State, the said Notification was merely one changing the
\ndesignation of various techniques and engineers having scale
\nof  pay of Rs.300-600 but having different designations\t and
\nwas  meant  to\tgive uniformity of designation\tto  all\t the
\naforesaid officials in the same scale of pay of\t Rs.300-600.
\nIt  was\t also the contention of the State  that\t they  being
\nOperator-cum-Mechanics\twhose recruitment qualifications  is
\nmuch  less  than the the diploma in engineerings,  the\twrit
\npetitioners cannot or are not entitled to be redesignated as
\nSub-Assistant Engineers.  These contentions were repelled by
\nthe  learned  single  Judge  who  by  judgment\tdated\t19th
\nSeptember,  1979,  allowed  the\t writ  petitions.   In\t the
\nJudgment, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., (as he then was) held  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t “Now\tit is important to emphasise that  the\tsaid
\n\t Notifications\t covered   `other   diploma   holder
\n\t Engineers’.  Now,  if those who were  engineers  or
\n\t those\tfor  whose  recruitments   qualification  of
\n\t being\t engineers  was\t essential  there   was\t  no
\n\t necessity   to\t  indicate  that  they\t should\t  be
\n\t henceforth  be termed as  Sub-Assistant  Engineers.
\n\t They  are  Engineers, Sub-Assistant  or  otherwise,
\n\t before\t they were called by  the deeming  provision
\n\t of   the   amended   Notifications   referred\t  to
\n\t hereinbefore.”\n<\/p>\n
     In\t construing  sub-para (ii) of Para IV  of  the\tsaid
\nNotification, the learned Judge said thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t      523<\/span><\/p>\n
\t “The\taforesaid clause  in the  Notifications\t can
\n\t only  mean,  in my opinion, that  even\t though\t the
\n\t persons who come within the purview of this amended
\n\t clause\t of  the Notification will for\tthe  limited
\n\t purpose   of  their  pay,  allowances\t and   other
\n\t financial  emoluments\tbe termed from the  date  of
\n\t coming into operation or from the mentioned in\t the
\n\t Notification  of  1974 that is to say from  1st  of
\n\t March, 1974 as Sub-Assistant Engineers though\tthey
\n\t are,  in fact, not engineers.\tThat in my  opinion,
\n\t is clear from the language used.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned  single  Judge noticed  that\tthe  history
\npreceding the Notification supported the clear language used
\nand persons holding different positions became by virtue  of
\nthe  Notification  entitled to be  termed  as  Sub-Assistant
\nEngineers  irrespective\t and  independent   of\twhether\t  by
\nfortuitous circumstances some of the incumbents who got\t the
\nbenefits  of  the  said\t Notification  are  also   qualified
\nengineers.    Accordingly,  it\twas  held  that\t  the\twrit
\npetitioners come within the purview of the Notification\t for
\npurpose of the the pay-scale and the rule was made absolute.\n<\/p>\n
     The State Government carried the matter in appeal.\t The
\nDivision  Bench\t of the High Court vide judgment  and  order
\ndated  19.4.1985,  however,  affirmed  the  judgment   while
\nholding\t that sub-para (ii) of Para IV of  the\tNotification
\ndated  19.11.1974  cannot  be  construed  to  include\t the
\nOperator-cum-Mechanics\/Electricians   who  are\tholders\t  of
\ndiploma\t in engineering and drawing the scale of pay of\t Rs.
\n230-425.  The appeal was dismissed with the observation that
\nthe  writ  petitioners\tshould have  been  admitted  to\t the
\nbenefit\t of  the  scale of pay\tof  Rs.300-600\twith  higher
\ninitial\t start long before others holding the same  position
\nas the writ petitioners have been granted   the benefits and
\nthat  great injustice had been done to the writ\t petitioners
\nby  keeping them in the panel since 1974 without taking\t any
\nsteps  for their appointments to the post  of  Sub-Assistant
\nEngineers  although others have been appointed to  the\tsaid
\npost in implementation of the impugned Notification.\n<\/p>\n
     Being  aggrieved by the appellate judgment,  the  State
\nhas  moved  this Court under Article  136  of  Constitution.
\nLeave is granted in S.L.P.(C) No. 5298 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     The  main contention urged on behalf of the  appellants
\nis two-fold.  It is contended that the Division Bench having
\ncome to the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       524<\/span>
\nspecific  conclusion  that the Notification in question\t  is
\nnot   applicable  to  the  respsondents\t herein,  the\twrit
\npetitions  ought  to  have  been  dismissed.   The   further
\ncontention  is\tthat  the appointment of  17  other  persons
\nwithout\t considering  the  case of the\trespondents  even if
\nirregular  cannot be the basis for making  the\tNotification
\napplicable to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  considering these propositions put\t forward  by
\nMr.  Hegde,  Addl.  Solicitor  General,\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellants,  we shall dispose of the  preliminary  objection
\nraised by Mr. P.P. Rao, counsel for the respondents.  It was
\npointed\t out that no appeal has been preferred by the  State
\nof West Bengal against the judgment dated 25.6.1982 in\t the
\ncase  of  Ranjit  Kumar Ghosh & Ors. v. The  State  of\tWest
\nBengal\t&  Ors., being C.R. No. 923 (W)\t of  1980,  granting
\nsimilar relief and that the rule of law has become final  so
\nfar as that matter is concerned.  Relying on the decision of
\nthis  Court in Chief Secretary to Govt. A.P.  v.  Cornelius,
\n[1981]\t2  SCR\t930, it was argued  that  the  State  cannot
\nagitate\t the  case of only few others.\tIt is  not  disputed
\nthat the judgment against which no appeal has been preferred
\nis only based on the judgment in the main case which is\t now
\npending before us for consideration.  The Court in State  of
\nPunjab\tv.  Joginder Singh,<\/a> [1963] Supp.2 SCR 169,  where  a
\nsimilar objection was raised overruled the same observing at
\npage 177 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “In our opinion, the true position arising, if\t the
\n\t present  appeal  by  the  State  Government  should
\n\t succeed,  would be that the finality of the  orders
\n\t passed\t in  the other three writ petitions  by\t the
\n\t Punjab\t High Court would not be disturbed and\tthat
\n\t those\t three\tsuccessful  petitioners\t  would\t  be
\n\t entitled  to retain the advantages which  they\t had
\n\t secured  by the decision in their favour not  being
\n\t challenged by an appeal being filed.  That  however
\n\t would not help the present respondent who would  be
\n\t bound\tby our judgment in this appeal and  besides,
\n\t so   far  as  the  general  law  is  concerned\t  as
\n\t applicable  to everyone other than the\t three\twrit
\n\t petitioners  (who would be entitled to the  benefit
\n\t of  decisions\tin  their  favours  having  attained
\n\t finality),  the  law will be as laid down  by\tthis
\n\t Court.\t  We  therefore\t overrule  the\t preliminary
\n\t objection.”\n<\/p>\n
     It\t appears that this pronouncement was not noticed  in
\nCornelius  case\t (supra)  where\t the  facts  were  also\t not
\nidentical.  We have, therefore, no hesitation in  overruling
\nthe preliminary objection.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       525<\/span><\/p>\n
     The appellants, in our opinion, cannot however, succeed
\non the merits.\tThe basis of the respondents’ claim is\tthat
\nthey  are diploma holder engineers who are to be  designated
\nas  Sub-Assistant Engineers for the purpose of\tthe  revised
\npay-scale by virtue of the Notification dated 19th November,
\n1974.  The learned single Judge had construed the expression
\n‘other\tdiploma holder engineers’ in clause (ii) of Para  IV
\nof  the\t said  Notification as\tcovering  persons  like\t the
\nrespondents who are holders of diploma in engineering.\t The
\nDivision  Bench\t in holding a contrary view  overlooked\t the
\nfact  that  the\t posts of  Overseers,  Estimators  and\tSub-
\nOverseers  were already covered under the category  of\tSub-
\nAssistant Engineers even under the unamended rules and\twere
\nin  the\t pay-scale  of Rs.300-600  whereas  the\t respondents
\nholding the post of Operator-cum-Mechanics\/Electricians were
\ndiploma holder engineers in the scale of pay of\t Rs.230-425.
\nAs  noticed  by the learned single Judge,  the\treasons\t for
\namending the 1970 Rules by the Notifications dated 11.3.1974
\nand 19.11.1974 was the decision of the Government to  remove
\nthe  anomalies in the existing rule so as to attract men  of
\nquality\t and  also with a view to remove  frustration  among
\nthose  having specialised knowledge of a  technical  nature.
\nThis  factual background was not considered by the  Division
\nBench while considering the scope of the amended provisions.
\nThe  appellants\t admitted  that in  1970  the  pay-scale  of
\nOverseers  and Sub-Overseers was revised and both  Overseers
\nand  Sub-Overseers were brought within the scale of  Rs.300-\n<\/p>\n
600.   The  Division  Bench has recorded a  finding  to\t the
\neffect\tthat the Overseers.  Estimators\t and   Sub-Overseers
\nwere  already  included in the categories  of  Sub-Assistant
\nEngineers  under  Schedule I Part-B of the 1970\t Rules\teven
\nbefore the same was amended by the Notification.\n<\/p>\n
     The  persons  brought  under  the\tcategory  of  ‘other
\ndiploma\t holder engineers’ can only be the persons like\t the
\nOperator-cum-Mechanic\/Electrician     with    diploma\t  in
\nengineering  and  working  in  various\tdepartments  in\t the
\nEngineering   Service.\t It  is\t to  be\t noticed  that\t the
\nrespondents have been absorbed in the posts of Operator-cum-
\nMechanics  after having attended to the\t training  sponsored
\nunder the scheme ‘Training of Educated Unemployed Youths’ in
\nthe  operation\tof river lift, deep  tubewells\tand  shallow
\ntubewells  etc. Clause (iv) of Part IV of  the\tNotification
\nwhich  states  that  Gazetted status  is  conferred  on\t the
\nmembers of the Subordinate Engineering Services and all Sub-
\nAssistant  Engineers also relates to these  two\t categories,
\nthat is, the Overseers, Sub-Overseers and Estimators who are
\nalready\t members of the Subordinate Engineering Service\t and
\nthe  ‘other  diploma holder engineers’ now  termed  as\tSub-
\nAssistant Engineers.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       526<\/span><\/p>\n
     It\t has  been  contended for  the\tappellants  that  by
\nconstruing  the\t Notification  as  including  Operators-cum-
\nMechanics in the lower time scale as Sub-Assistant Engineers
\nand  giving them a higher scale, there would be\t a  division
\namongst\t the Operators-cum-Mechanics in the matter of  their
\npay-scale   and\t  such\tan  anomly  would  not\t have\tbeen
\ncontemplated by the rule makers.  There is no force in\tthis
\ncontention.   It is well-settled that difference in  pay  of
\nemployees  belonging to the same cadre post  or\t educational
\nqualification is constitutionally valid and permissible\t and
\nis not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution.
\nThe  post of Sub-Assistant Engineer is a direct\t recruitment
\npost.\tIt appears that the Division Bench assumed that\t the
\npost   of   Sub-Assistant  Engineers   were   ultimately   a
\npromotional  post  for the  Operators-cum-Mechanics  through
\nintermediary  promotions  in intermediary grades.   This  is
\nincorrect.   Under  the\t Rules, the  post  of  Sub-Assistant
\nEngineers  is  not  at\tall  a\tpromotional  post  for\t any
\ncategories of employees in the State, on the contrary, it is
\na direct recruitment post. It is not contested that 17 other
\nemployees  similarly placed as the respondents\therein\twere
\ngiven  the  benefits of the said amended  Notifications\t and
\nwere  conferred both status of Sub-Assistant  Engineers\t and
\nalso  the  pay-scale thereof for the reason that  they\twere
\nalso  diploma holder engineers though they were not  in\t the
\npay-scale of Rs.300-600.  This is a concurrent finding\tthat
\nthese  respondents  have been discriminated  and  the  State
\nGovernment had acted arbitrarily without any rational  basis
\nby  conferring\tbenefits  of the Notification  to  17  other
\nemployees  in  other  departments  while  denying  the\tsaid
\nbenefits   to  the  said  respondents  in  the\t Agriculture
\nDepartment.\n<\/p>\n
     It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the
\nOperators-cum-Mechanics\t would be absorbed in  the  existing
\nvacancies  in the category of Sub-Assistant Engineers  since
\ninjustice  had been done to the respondents by keeping\tthem
\nin  the panel since 1974 without taking any steps for  their
\nappointments  as Sub-Assistant Engineers along\twith  others
\nwhen  such  appointments were made and\tthe  assurance\tmade
\nbefore\tthe Court.  The fact that in implementation  of\t the
\njudgment  of the learned single Judge, the respondents\thave
\nalready\t been admitted to the benefits of the amended  Rule,
\nis an additional reason for this Court not to interfere with
\nthe impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t are,  therefore, of the view that  both  the  civil
\nappeals\t have only to be dismissed.  We do  so\taccordingly.
\nThe parties are directed to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y.L.\t\t\t\t       Appeals dismissed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       527<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (1) 517, 1991 SCC Supl. (1) 138 Author: M Fathima Beevi Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: DEBDAS KUMAR AND ORS. […]<\/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-47576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991 - 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\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-22T23:11:10+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T23:11:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991\"},\"wordCount\":2806,\"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\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991\",\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T23:11:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991 - 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\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-22T23:11:10+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991","datePublished":"1991-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T23:11:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991"},"wordCount":2806,"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\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991","name":"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T23:11:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-etc-vs-debdas-kumar-and-ors-etc-on-19-february-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991"}]},{"@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\/47576","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=47576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}