{"id":47828,"date":"2008-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-24T07:24:27","modified_gmt":"2019-01-24T01:54:27","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . ……………<\/div>\n
Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, J.M. Panchal<\/div>\n
                                                 1\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.6213 OF 2008\n           (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.7686 OF 2004)\n\n\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      Appellant(s)\n\n                VERSUS\n\nCHITRA LEKHA CHAKRABORTY                       Respondent(s)\n\nWITH\nC.A.NO.6214\/2008 @ SLP(C)NOS.180603\/2005\n\nAND WITH\nC.A.NOS.6215-6216\/2008 @ SLP(C)NOS.21902-21903\/2004\n\n                                  ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
           Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\n           Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n
           We will first deal with   Civil Appeals @ SLP) Nos.21902-03\/04<\/p>\n
and Civil Appeal @ SLP) no.18603\/05.\n<\/p>\n
           These appeals, by special leave, are being filed in connection with<\/p>\n
the selection   of Non-Technical Popular Clerical Category of the Railways.<\/p>\n
The selection was held in the year 1984 and a written test was held on<\/p>\n
26.5.1985 followed by an interview on 25.9.1985. Several candidates were<\/p>\n
selected. There was allegation that some of the candidates, who participated<\/p>\n
in the selection, indulged in malpractices in the examination and it appears<\/p>\n
that the selection Board has published a list which contains about 1000<\/p>\n
candidates. Some of these candidates who were aggrieved by their non-<\/p>\n
selection filed various representations before the Railway Recruitment Board.
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
While these representations were pending, they filed
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short<\/p>\n
`C.A.T.’)at Calcutta. The C.A.T. has directed that their cases be considered<\/p>\n
and fresh interviews be held and selection be done and the candidates be<\/p>\n
included.   Thereafter several candidates were appointed, pursuant to the<\/p>\n
direction of the C.A.T..   Prior to this, on 17.2.1986 the Addl. Executive<\/p>\n
Director Estt.(T&MPP) wrote a letter to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment<\/p>\n
Board indicating the number of candidates to whom the fresh notices have<\/p>\n
been issued and it was found that some candidates have secured more marks<\/p>\n
than the 1000 candidates, who were suspected to have indulged in<\/p>\n
malpractices, and he was of the view that these candidates should be given<\/p>\n
careful consideration and on consideration of the same, their rights should be<\/p>\n
restored and the names of those candidates which were in the list should be<\/p>\n
included in the appropriate places in the panel.      Appropriate direction to<\/p>\n
appoint the respondents in Civil Appeal @ SLP)Nos.21902-21903\/04 and in<\/p>\n
the appeal @ SLP(C)No.18603\/05 were issued, on the basis of the letter dated<\/p>\n
17.2.1986 and the said respondents were appointed in the year 1994. These<\/p>\n
respondents had claimed seniority over the candidates who had already been<\/p>\n
appointed in the year 1985 based on the statement made in the letter dated<\/p>\n
17.2.1986 that their appointments should be made after including them at<\/p>\n
the appropriate places in the panel. The C.A.T. has directed the railway<\/p>\n
authorities to fix the specific position of the respondents in the panel for the<\/p>\n
purpose of determination in the inter se    seniority against those appointed<\/p>\n
from the said panel
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
and the relative position of the applicants in such panel shall be ascribed<\/p>\n
keeping in view the aggregate marks obtained by the applicants and the<\/p>\n
relative aggregate marks of the applicants who have already been appointed<\/p>\n
from the said panel.\n<\/p>\n
      This order of the C.A.T. was challenged before the High Court<\/p>\n
contending that these respondents were appointed only in the year 1994 and<\/p>\n
that they cannot claim seniority over the candidates who had already been<\/p>\n
appointed in the year 1985. But this plea of the respondents was not accepted<\/p>\n
by the High Court and the order of the C.A.T. was confirmed by the High<\/p>\n
Court. The judgment of the High Court in these two proceedings are<\/p>\n
challenged in the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
              We will now deal with Civil Appeal @ SLP) 7686\/04. The brief<\/p>\n
facts are :\n<\/p>\n
              The respondent herein had participated in the selection in the<\/p>\n
year 1984 and her name was not found in the selection list and she filed a<\/p>\n
representation to the Railway authorities in the year 1991 and her<\/p>\n
representation was not replied by the railway authorities whereafter she filed<\/p>\n
an Original Application before the C.A.T., Calcutta. The C.A.T. has allowed<\/p>\n
the O.A. During the pendency of the O.A. before the Tribunal, the Chairman<\/p>\n
of the Railway Recruitment Board issued a direction to appoint the respondent<\/p>\n
and she was consequently appointed.        Thereafter the O.A. filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent was disposed of on 8.1.1996          with the direction that the<\/p>\n
Chairman of the Railway Recruitment Board shall, within two months from the<\/p>\n
date of communication of the order, convey to the petitioner
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
therein to specify the specific position of the petitioner in the panel selected<\/p>\n
for the purpose of determination of her inter se seniority amongst those<\/p>\n
appointed from the said panel and it was also directed that the relative<\/p>\n
position of the petitioner of such panel shall be ascribed keeping in view her<\/p>\n
aggregate marks and the relative aggregate marks of other candidates who<\/p>\n
had already been appointed from the panel. Thereafter the appellant Union of<\/p>\n
India (Ministry of Railways) has filed a review petition before the C.A.T. and<\/p>\n
the same was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond 30 days as<\/p>\n
prescribed under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1987 (for short `the 1987 Rules).     The appellant has challenged the<\/p>\n
same before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the order passed<\/p>\n
by the C.A.T. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by<\/p>\n
the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned Addl.Sol.General for the Union of India contended that<\/p>\n
the review petition filed by the appellant should have been allowed as there<\/p>\n
was sufficient cause for extending the period of limitation prescribed under<\/p>\n
Rule 17 of the 1987 Rules. Learned Addl.Sol.General has placed reliance on a<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal<\/p>\n
Secretary, Irrigation Dept. & Ors., reported in 2008(7) SCC p.169, wherein it<\/p>\n
was held that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to an<\/p>\n
application submitted under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation<\/p>\n
Act, 1996. It was further held that as per Section
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
43 of the Arbitration Act, the   Limitation Act, 1963 was     applicable to the<\/p>\n
application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for<\/p>\n
setting aside the award. In other words, a specific provision was made in the<\/p>\n
Arbitration and Conciliation Act for application of Limitation Act.      In the<\/p>\n
instant case a specific provision in Rule 17 of 1987 Rules has been made for<\/p>\n
filing a review application before the C.A.T. and therefore, Section 5 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act was not applicable to a petition filed under Rule 17. The High<\/p>\n
Court was justified in concluding that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the<\/p>\n
application filed beyond 30 days.\n<\/p>\n
             On coming to the question of seniority of the respondent the<\/p>\n
direction of the C.A.T. was that the respondent herein shall be given specific<\/p>\n
position in the panel for the purpose of determination of her inter se seniority<\/p>\n
against those appointed from the said panel and the relative position of the<\/p>\n
respondent in such panel shall be ascribed keeping in view the aggregate<\/p>\n
marks obtained by the applicants who have already been appointed from the<\/p>\n
said panel. It was contended on behalf of the Railways that the selection was<\/p>\n
held in the year 1984 and the records relating to the selection are not<\/p>\n
available with them as there was an accidental fire and the records have been<\/p>\n
destroyed.      Moreover the respondent herein also is not successful in<\/p>\n
producing any document to show as to what is the aggregate marks obtained<\/p>\n
by her vis a vis the aggregate marks obtained by other candidates who had<\/p>\n
already been appointed. There is also no common panel prepared conjoining<\/p>\n
the selection
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
made in the year 1984 and the persons appointed subsequently so that the<\/p>\n
seniority could be determined by the appellant. Even though the direction<\/p>\n
issued by the Tribunal has become final in view of the peculiar position the<\/p>\n
Railways is directed to give seniority to the respondent from the date on<\/p>\n
which she joined the service.\n<\/p>\n
              The appeal @ SLP(C)No.7686 of 2004 is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
No costs.\n<\/p>\n
              In the other two appeals i.e. Civil Appeals @ SLP) Nos.21902-<\/p>\n
03\/04 and Civil Appeal @ SLP) no.18603\/05, the respondents were<\/p>\n
appointed pursuant to the direction passed by the C.A.T. and it was also<\/p>\n
directed that their seniority shall be given based on their aggregate marks<\/p>\n
over the relative aggregate marks obtained by other candidates who had<\/p>\n
already been appointed. Neither the respondents nor the Railways are in a<\/p>\n
position to give the aggregate marks obtained by the respondents nor the<\/p>\n
marks obtained by the candidates who had already been appointed. There<\/p>\n
was no common panel vis a vis the candidates from the year 1985 and the<\/p>\n
candidates who had been subsequently appointed. Only if there was a<\/p>\n
common panel, the seniority could be determined on the basis of Rule 303<\/p>\n
which regulates the seniority of the non-gazetted railway employees. There<\/p>\n
was no common seniority list nor any merit list prepared by including all the<\/p>\n
candidates.    Moreover, the respondents herein were not included in the<\/p>\n
original list and the C.A.T. has directed that there should be a fresh interview<\/p>\n
for these candidates and the interview was held subsequently. It must
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
have been certainly by a different Board which had conducted the interview.<\/p>\n
Under these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that all these candidates, who<\/p>\n
had been appointed, were from the same panel. There are no criteria available<\/p>\n
to determine the inter se merit of the candidates. These respondents were<\/p>\n
appointed several years after the appointments were made in the year 1985.<\/p>\n
None of the candidates who had been selected in the year 1985 were made<\/p>\n
parties to the O.A. before the C.A.T. or before the High Court in the writ<\/p>\n
petition. In the circumstances, the seniority of the candidates who had been<\/p>\n
appointed in the year 1985 cannot be disturbed without hearing those<\/p>\n
candidates. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents strongly relied on<\/p>\n
the letter dated 17.2.1986 written by the Addl.Executive Director to the<\/p>\n
Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board wherein he expressed the opinion that<\/p>\n
in case the representations filed by these candidates are allowed their places<\/p>\n
in the seniority is to be given by interpolating in the seniority list which has<\/p>\n
already been made. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that this<\/p>\n
was not the stand of the Railway Board and once the stand was expressly<\/p>\n
made clear, the appellant was bound by this statement. Reliance was also<\/p>\n
placed on the observations of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The<\/p>\n
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported (1978) 1 SCC p.405,<\/p>\n
wherein this Court has stated that when a statutory functionary makes an<\/p>\n
order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so<\/p>\n
mentioned and cannot      be   supplemented    by   fresh reasons in the shape<\/p>\n
of
\n                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the<\/p>\n
time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional<\/p>\n
grounds later brought out and it was contended that these observations of<\/p>\n
this Court were further followed in State Govt. Houseless Employees’<\/p>\n
Association Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC p.610 at para 49,<\/p>\n
Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2003(6) SCC p.545 para<\/p>\n
37 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai &<\/p>\n
Ors., 2005(7) SCC p.627 paras 24 to 27. But in the instant case there was no<\/p>\n
order passed by any responsible officer or by the Railway Recruitment Board<\/p>\n
to the effect that if any candidate, who had subsequently been appointed,<\/p>\n
his\/her seniority would be determined on the basis of his\/her aggregate<\/p>\n
marks or the rank secured in the interview. The letter dated 17.2.1986 cannot<\/p>\n
be considered as an order passed on behalf of the railways. Moreover, the<\/p>\n
seniority of persons appointed in a service should be decided after hearing<\/p>\n
the relevant parties and applying the rules regulating the seniority principle.<\/p>\n
            In these cases there was no common seniority list and marks<\/p>\n
secured by these candidates and the candidates who had been appointed in<\/p>\n
the year 1985 are not available and placed before C.A.T. or High Court. The<\/p>\n
relative merit of the candidates cannot be considered as no marks are placed<\/p>\n
even before us.     It may also be noticed that these respondents were<\/p>\n
appointed after a period of six years, not due to any fault committed     by the<\/p>\n
Railway Recruitment Board. As per the
\n                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
allegations and counter allegations, it would appear that some of the<\/p>\n
candidates had indulged in malpractices and they were disqualified and later<\/p>\n
on on the basis of the representations and        the   orders   passed        by the<\/p>\n
C.A.T. the respondents were appointed subsequently.               There was no<\/p>\n
negligence or latches on the part of the appellant in making the appointments<\/p>\n
of the respondents belatedly. Having regard to the peculiar facts, the<\/p>\n
respondents are entitled to seniority only from the date when they joined<\/p>\n
their service.\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly,   Civil   appeals   @    SLP)Nos.21902-03\/04             and<\/p>\n
SLP)No.18603\/05 are allowed to the extent indicated above and the order<\/p>\n
passed by the High Court is set aside. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ……………CJI.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)<\/p>\n
                                                                      ……………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 (P. SATHASIVAM)<\/p>\n
                                                                      ……………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   (J.M. PANCHAL)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
21ST OCTOBER, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008 Author: . …………… Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, J.M. Panchal 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6213 OF 2008 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.7686 OF 2004) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS […]<\/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-47828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-24T01:54:27+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T01:54:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2145,\"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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T01:54:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-24T01:54:27+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T01:54:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008"},"wordCount":2145,"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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T01:54:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-chitra-lekha-chakraborty-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Chitra Lekha Chakraborty on 21 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/47828","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=47828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}