{"id":51552,"date":"1962-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962"},"modified":"2018-09-12T11:19:03","modified_gmt":"2018-09-12T05:49:03","slug":"balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962","title":{"rendered":"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of &#8230; on 14 November, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of &#8230; on 14 November, 1962<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: AIR 1963 MP 216<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Krishnan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: H Krishnan, P Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Krishnan,   J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. The  petitioner who  had  been  working  as  Sub-inspector of Police has come to  this Court from the order of<\/p>\n<p>the Inspector General of Police dated 27-5-1958. He has alleged irregularities out of which 3 have been pressed.\n<\/p>\n<p> (i) In the circumstances to be set out presently he argues that he was really an officer under the control of the Government of the State of Rajasthan and as such could not have been dismissed by the inspector General of Police in the State of Madhya Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n<p> (ii) The inquiring officer Deputy Superintendent ot Police Afaq Hussain was prejudiced against him, being, in fact, the officer who had at the first instance asked the Circle Inspector to make a preliminary inquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p> and   (iii)     His   prayer   for   personal   hearing   at   the punishment stage was not granted. Accordingly,  the  petitioner  has  asked  under  Article   226,   a writ  or direction    by  this Court     setting  aside    of  the order of &#8220;dismissal  and  his  reinstatement  in  service.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Delay. The petitioner was dismissed on 27-5-1958, the order itself being communicated to him on 3-6-1958. He filed an appeal to the Government which was dismissed on 29-12-1959. However, he filed the present petition about one year later on 9-1-1961, Naturally, the delay calls for explanation and there is none except that the petitioner noticed the Government for redress, which took a month or so and had in addition to brief a lawyer and prepare his case. In these circumstances, the delay is considerable and has remained unexplained. This by itself justifies the dismissal of the petition, even if there was substance in it.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The petition has, however, been heard on merits and our decision on the grounds may be set out briefly.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Ground No. 1. The petitioner&#8217;s argument is that though he had been actually working in the State of Madhya Pradesh from the 1st of November, 1956 was for matters of discipline a servant of the Rajasthan Government It is not that he is an officer of the State of Rajasthan working on deputation in the State of Madhya Pradesh; there is, of course, no such deputation order. But it is urged that Sections 115 and 116 of the States Reorganisation Act notwithstanding, he was till the publication of the order of the Union Government in the Home Ministry No. 6\/18\/60-SR(s) dated 11th August 1960 an officer in the service of Rajasthan. That order runs,<br \/>\n  &#8220;The Central Government hereby determine that persons who were provisionally required to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs order No. 68\/3\/56-SR. II, dated 31st October 1956 and who are mentioned by name in column (1) and by official designation in col. (2) of the schedule below shall be finally allotted to serve in connection with the affairs of the State specified in col. (3) of the said schedule with effect from the 1st Nov. 1956.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The facts are that immediately before the date appointed in the States Reorganisation Act 37 of 1956 he was working in Sironj, which at that time was part<br \/>\nof the State of Rajasthan. However, on the 1st November 1956 it became part of the State of Madhya Pradesh<br \/>\nin the District of Bhilsa. Thus under Section 115(2) of the States Reorganisation Act he continued to serve in connection with the affairs of the successor state which in the instant case was the State of Madhya Pradesh. The transfer orders made atter the 1st November, 1956 were by the Government in the Police Department<\/p>\n<p>of the Madhya Pradesh. The proceedings themselves were initiated by the Superintendent of Police Bhilsa on 14-8-1957. An inquiry was held after the usual service of charge-sheet and show cause notice by a Deputy Superintendent of Police name Shri Afaq Hussain. The report was submitted to the Inspector General of Police and the punishment notice was issued by him as also the order of dismissal. The argument is that the petitioner&#8217;s service in the Madhya Pradesh was only provisional with the implication, that he was for purposes of service one working in the State of Rajasthan, and was in the Madhya Pradesh by a kind of notional deputation. This position according to the petitioner continued till 1960 when the order under Section 115(3) was made by the Central Government. No doubt, there was an earlier order of the 31st October, 1956, but that too was provisional.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The entire argument is fallacious in view of the provisions in Section 116(1) of the States Reorganisation Act:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Every person,  who  immediately before the  appointed day  is holding or discharging the  duties  of any  post  or office. &#8230;..in connection with the affairs of an<br \/>\nexisting State in any area which on that date falls within another existing State or a new part &#8216;A&#8217; State shall. &#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>continue  to  hold  the   same  post  or  office   in  the   other existing State  or the  new part A State. &#8230;.. in<br \/>\nwhich  such  area  is  included  on  that date  and  shall   be deemed  as  from  that  day  to   have  been   duly   appointed to  such  post or officer by the  Government  of or other appropriate   authority    in   such   State. &#8230;..   as   the<br \/>\ncase may be.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> Thus, notwithstanding the delay in the making of the order under Section 115(3) by the Union Government, for purposes of this case, the petitioner was a servant of the State of Madhya Pradesh from the 1st November 1956.\n<\/p>\n<p> This is obvious as far as it goes. But the petitioner has cited the case Balakrishnan v. State of Madras, (S) AIR 1957 Mad 769 as authority for the proposition that in spite of the &#8220;deeming&#8221; provision the officer will be one working in the original State. That rule seals with a set of facts quite different from the present one; but apparently the petitioner wants to read it in the reverse to support his contention. There, an officer working in an area that was part of the State of Madras began to work in another State by transfer of that area during the reorganisation of States with effect from 1-11-1956. But a few days before this on the 28th or 29th October, 1956 departmental proceedings had been started against him, and ultimately disposed of by the State of Madras at a time when the officer had come under The control of another State. The question was whether in these circumstances the authority in the State of Madras could punish him at a time when he was under the control of another State Government. On the strength of Section 116(2) of the Act the High Court held that the authority in the State of Madras was competent to do this. The argument seems to be that, since it was held that for the purposes of proceedings initiated while the officer was working in the State of Madras he was still under the jurisdiction of the authority in that State, the petitioner should be treated as continuing to be under the control of the State of Rajasthan. But we are not dealing with proceedings started against the officer in the State of Rajasthan before 1-11-1956; here the proceedings were started after that date, in the<\/p>\n<p>State of Madhya Pradesh, for alleged doing in that State. Therefore,  Section   116(2)   has  no  application.    Section   116(1)<br \/>\nis clear enough. There is, therefore, no substance in this ground.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Ground No. 2. The second ground is that the inquiry was vitiated because it was held by Shri Ataq Hussain, who took up the allegations against the petitioner, and at the first instance asked the Circle inspector to look into them. The question is whether or not it is fair and reasonable for an officer who first detected the alleged misconduct or irregularity himself to hold the departmental inquiry. As long as the officer who actually punishes is another, and he applies his own personal judgment to the results of the inquiry there may be little or no prejudice. There may be cases where a single superior officer has been dealing with the case throughout from the preliminary inquiry up to the awarding of the punishment, in which event prejudice may be quite patent. Whatever may be the general position, this ground is of no force in the instant case, because is was never raised before the inquiry by the petitioner himself. If indeed the petitioner thought that Deputy Superintendent Afaq Hussain was prejudiced against him, and it might be unfair for him to hold the inquiry, he should have represented to the Inspector General or other Superior Officer as soon as he got notice about the inquiry. In this case, he did not, and actually acquiesced and assisted in the inquiry. When the report turned out to be adverse, for the first time he made the allegation that Deputy Superintendent of Police Afaq Hussain was biased against him. Certainly this cannot be taken seriously.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.    Ground   No.  3.    Another ground  advanced  by the<br \/>\npetitioner is that he was refused a personal hearing even though he had asked for it. This again is based on a misunderstanding. He was, no doubt, personally present, and assisted during the inquiry. When the report went to the Inspector General he issued the usual notice<br \/>\nregarding punishment. The petitioner showed cause<br \/>\nagainst punishment and further prayed that he might be<br \/>\npersonally heard on this also. It is difficult to see what<br \/>\ndifference it makes whether the cause against punishment<br \/>\nis shown in a petition, or is heard by the officer coming up in person and explaining his position, The situation is surely different when there is an inquiry on allegations; there personal presence can make all the difference, both in confronting the witnesses and in explaining the facts. But once the facts have been investigated<br \/>\nin the inquiry; and the problem is which of the alternative punishments would be fair and just in the circumstances, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the<br \/>\nofficer affected comes in person or sends a written cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>Neither under Article 311 nor under the rules trained by<br \/>\nthe Madhya Pradesh Government is a personal hearing<br \/>\nat the stage of punishment a legal requirement. In<br \/>\nprinciple, even where something is not expressly provided<br \/>\nin the statute or the rule, it may have to be given to<br \/>\nthe party likely to be affected by the order, if on the<br \/>\ngrounds of reasonableness or fair-play it will materially<br \/>\nhelp him in making himself better understood by his<br \/>\nsuperiors. But this is not the position here. This question came up before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in<br \/>\nC. A. D&#8217;Souza v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1962 Jab LJ<br \/>\n97 : (AIR 1961 Madh-Pra 261); it was ruled that the<br \/>\nrefusal of a personal hearing at this stage is no irregularity or prejudice.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. The result is that the petition is found to be without substance and is dismissed. Costs payable to opposite party Government Rs. 50\/-. The balance, if any, out of the security may be refunded to him.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of &#8230; on 14 November, 1962 Equivalent citations: AIR 1963 MP 216 Author: Krishnan Bench: H Krishnan, P Sharma JUDGMENT Krishnan, J. 1. The petitioner who had been working as Sub-inspector of Police has come to this Court from the order of the Inspector [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of ... on 14 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of ... on 14 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-12T05:49:03+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of &#8230; on 14 November, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T05:49:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962\"},\"wordCount\":1841,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962\",\"name\":\"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of ... on 14 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T05:49:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of &#8230; on 14 November, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of ... on 14 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of ... on 14 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-12T05:49:03+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of &#8230; on 14 November, 1962","datePublished":"1962-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T05:49:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962"},"wordCount":1841,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962","name":"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of ... on 14 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T05:49:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balkishan-chaturvedi-vs-the-chief-secretary-govt-of-on-14-november-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balkishan Chaturvedi vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of &#8230; on 14 November, 1962"}]},{"@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\/51552","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=51552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}