{"id":5165,"date":"1990-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990"},"modified":"2015-06-11T10:53:28","modified_gmt":"2015-06-11T05:23:28","slug":"s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990","title":{"rendered":"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 276, \t\t 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 328<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS.P. DUBEY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.P.S.R.T. CORPN. AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/10\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR  276\t\t  1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 328\n 1991 SCC  Supl.  (1) 426 JT 1990 (4)\t236\n 1990 SCALE  (2)819\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1991 SC 310\t (2,3)\n\n\nACT:\n    Road  Transport Corporation Act, 1950: S. 34\/M.P.  State\nRoad  Transport Corporation Employees  Service\tRegulations.\n1964:  Regulation 59--Private company taken over and  merged\nwith Corporation-Age of Superannuation of existing staff  at\n60  years specifically prorected-Whether amenable  to  State\nService\t Rules--Whether Regulation can override\t the  direc-\ntions issued under the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t age  of  superannuation for the  employees  of\t the\nprivate\t transport company in which the appellant  was\tini-\ntially\temployed  was 60 years. When the  said\tcompany\t was\ntaken over by the State on August 31, 1955, the notification\nspecifically  provided that the existing staff would not  be\nadversely  affected with regard to terms and  conditions  of\nservice.  Again,  when\tthe services 01\t the  staff  of\t the\ntaken-over company were transferred to the respondent-Corpo-\nration established under s. 3 of the Road Transport Corpora-\ntion Act, 1950, the memorandum dated May 4, 1962 recited the\nsame  assurance. A resolution passed by the Board of  Direc-\ntors of the Corporation on the same day also reiterated\t the\nsaid  assurance.  Subsequently, when  the  State  Government\nissued\tdirections  on October 29, 1963 to  the\t Corporation\nunder  s.  34  of the Act the said  assurance  was  embodied\ntherein\t too. However, Regulation 59 of the M.P. State\tRoad\nTransport  Corporation Employees Service  Regulations,\t1964\nframed\tby  the\t Corporation under s. 45(2)(c)\tof  the\t Act\nprovided  that the employees of the Corporation were  liable\nto compulsory retirement on the date of their completion  of\n58 years of age unless specifically permitted to continue.\n    When the appellant was sought to be retired from service\nin terms of Regulation 59 of the said Regulations on attain-\ning the age of 58 years with effect from June 30, 1984 by  a\nnotice\tdated May 25, 1983, he challenged it by\t a  petition\nunder Article 226\/227 of the Constitution. It was  dismissed\nby  the High Court on the view that on August 31, 1955\twhen\nthe  appellant became State Government employee his  age  of\nsuperannuation\tcame to be governed by the  statutory  rules\nunder Article 309 of the Constitution and the age of retire-\nment  of  the State servants under the said rules  being  58\nyears the appellant was rightly retired.\n329\nAllowing the appeal, the Court,\n    HELD:  1.  The  appellant was entitled  to\tcontinue  in\nservice upto the age of 60 years.\n    2.1\t When  the  State Government takes  over  a  private\ncompany and gives an assurance that conditions of service of\nthe  existing staff would not he adversely affected,  it  is\nbut fair that the State Government should honour the same.\n    2.2 In the instant case, the appellant was in service of\nthe company from 1947 to August 30, 1955 in which the age of\nsuperannuation\tof the employees was 60 years.\tThe  company\nwas  taken  over by the State Government  with\teffect\tfrom\nAugust\t31,  1955 by a notification of the same\t date  which\nspecifically  stated that the existing staff of the  company\nwould not he adversely affected with regard to their  condi-\ntions  of service. The State Service Rules which  fixed\t the\nage  of\t superannuation at 58 years could not thus  he\tmade\napplicable  to\tthe  appellant and other  employees  of\t the\ntaken-over company.\n    3. Furthermore, the said assurance was also incorporated\nin  the\t directions issued by the State\t Government  to\t the\nCorporation  under s. 34 of the Act. The  Corporation  could\nnot  frame regulations contrary to the said  directions\t and\nthe  age of superannuation which the appellant was  enjoying\nunder  the  State  Government could not he  altered  to\t his\ndisadvantage by the Corporation. Regulation 59 framed by the\nCorporation was, therefore, not applicable to the appellant.\n    The General Manager, Mysore State Road Transport  Corpo-\nration\tv. Devraj Ors and Anr., [1976] 2 SCC  862,  referred\nto.\n    4.\tSince the appellant had already attained the age  of\n60 years, he was only entitled to two years emoluments.\t The\nrespondents are directed to pay the same to him within three\nmonths. [334B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1731  of
\n1986.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 26.4.  1985  of\t the
\nMadhya\tPradesh\t High Court in Misc. Petition  No.  1729  of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
Avadh Behari and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
330<\/span><\/p>\n
    Rameshwar  Nath,  V.S. Dabir, Rajinder  Narain  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    KULDIP  SINGH,  J.S.P. Dubey, employed with\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t State Road Transport Corporation, was retired\tfrom
\nservice on his attaining the age of 58 years. He claims that
\nthe  age  of  superannuation was 60 years and  as  such\t his
\nretirement at 58 was illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tmay state the necessary facts. Dubey joined  service
\nas  a  junior  clerk with the  Central\tProvinces  Transport
\nService Limited (hereinafter called the company) in the year
\n1947. The Board of Directors of the company by a  resolution
\ndated  July 30, 1954 fixed the age of superannuation of\t all
\nits  employees except the drivers as 60 years.\tThe  company
\nwas purchased and taken Over by the State of Madhya  Pradesh
\nby  a notification dated August 31, 1955. The relevant\tpart
\nof the said notification is as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The  undertaking  will\t as from the 31st  August,  1955  be
\nentitled  ‘The Central Provinces Transport  Services  (under
\nGovernment  Ownership)”. So far as the public  is  concerned
\nthere  will  be no change or interruption in the  course  of
\nbusiness  and the continuity of operation will not  be\tdis-
\nturbed and the existing staff will not be adversely affected
\nwith  regard to terms and conditions of their services.\t The
\nstatutory instrument to be made in due course will  provide,
\namong  other things that all the rights and  liabilities  of
\nthe  Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd.\twill  become
\nthe  rights and liabilities of the Central Provinces  Trans-
\nport Services (Under Government ownership) and from a  legal
\npoint of view the staff, customers and contractors can\tlook
\nto  the Central Provinces Transport Services (Under  Govern-
\nment  ownership) to discharge all the obligations and  exer-
\ncise  all the rights that at present rest with\tthe  Central
\nProvinces  Transport Service Ltd., Rules for the conduct  of
\nbusiness  of the above constituted Board of  Management\t are
\nbeing published separately.”\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  thus obvious that the  Government  continued  to
\nmaintain  the  Central\tProvinces Transport  Services  as  a
\nseparate entity. The conditions of service, of the staff  of
\nthe taken-over company, were specifically protected.\n<\/p>\n
331<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t State of Madhya Pradesh was recoganised  under\t the
\nStates Reorganisation Act, 1956. The Central Government,  by
\na notification dated February 28, 1961, extended the  provi-
\nsions  of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1958\t(hereinafter
\ncalled ‘the Act’) to the State of Madhya Pradesh with effect
\nfrom April 1, 1961. Thereafter the Madhya Pradesh Government
\nacting\tunder  Section 3 of the Act established\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called
\nCorporation)  with  effect  from May 21,  1962.\t The  Madhya
\nPradesh Government issued two memorandums on May 4, 1962. By
\none  memorandum\t the  services of  the\tconcerned  employees
\nincluding  Dubey-were transferred to the Corporation and  by
\nthe  second  it\t was clarified that the\t said  transfer\t was
\nsubject to the conditions that their service would be treat-
\ned  as uninterrupted and their pay-scales and conditions  of
\nservice would not be affected. On the same day and Board  of
\nDirectors  of  the Corporation passed a\t resolution  to\t the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
“Resolved that the services of the employees employed  under
\nM.B.R.\tand  C.P.T.S. on 31.5.1962 are\ttransferred  to\t the
\nCorporation  temporarily until further orders from  1.6.1962
\non the following conditions:\n<\/p>\n
1. The pay scale and conditions of service are not  affected
\nby the transfer.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The transfer will not be considered as  interruption  of
\nservices.\n<\/p>\n
\t 3.  In case of employees coming under the  category
\nof  workman  as defined under the Industrial  Disputes\tAct,
\n1947, the Corporation in the event of retrenchment will\t pay
\ncompensation on the basis that the services had been contin-
\nued and had not affected by transfer.”\n<\/p>\n
    The State Government issued directions dated October 29,
\n1963  to the Corporation under Section 34 of the Act.  Rele-
\nvant part of the directions is as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The members of the staff of the Madhya Bharat Roadways\t and
\nCentral\t Provinces  Transport Services, who  have  opted  to
\nserve  under  the Corporation in pursuance  of\tthe  notices
\nissued\tto them by the Commerce and Industry  Department  or
\nany authority of the Madhya Bharat Road-\n<\/p>\n
332<\/span><\/p>\n
ways  and Central Provinces Transport Service shall  be\t em-
\nployed by the Corporation subject to such regulations as may
\nbe made by it under Section 45(2)(c) of the ‘Road  Transport
\nCorporation  Act,  1950\t ‘(Central Act LXIV  of\t 1950),\t and
\nsubject to ‘such assurance as may have been given to them by
\nthe State Government.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Corporation  framed-regulations called\t The  Madhya
\nPradesh\t State Road Transport Corporation Employees  Service
\nRegulations, 1964.” Regulation 59 which provided the age  of
\nsuperannuation was as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Employees  of\/he State Transport are liable  to  compulsory
\nretirement  on the date of their completion of fifty  eight-
\nyears  of age unless specifically permitted by the  Corpora-
\ntion to continue in service for a specified period  thereaf-
\nter, but he must not be retained after the age of 60  years,
\nwithout the sanction of State Government.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t corporation issued a notice dated May 25,  1983  to
\nDubey  informing him that he was due to retire from  service
\non June 30, 1984 on attaining the age of 58 years. He  chal-
\nlenged\tthe  said  notice by way of a  writ  petition  under
\nArticle\t 226\/227  of the Constitution of  India\t before\t the
\nMadhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, The High Court by its
\njudgment  dated April 26, 1985 dismissed the writ  petition.
\nThe  present  appeal  by way of special\t leave\tpetition  is
\nagainst the judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High  Court, following its earlier  Division  Bench
\njudgment,  came\t to the conclusion that on August  31,\t1955
\nwhen the appellant became State Government employee his\t age
\nof superannuation came to be governed by the statutory rules
\nunder Article 309 of the Constitution of India operating  in
\nrespect\t of the Government employees of the State of  Madhya
\nPradesh\t and  the age of retirement of\tthe  State  servants
\nunder the said rules being 58 years the appellant was right-
\nly retired.\n<\/p>\n
    The appellant was in service of the company from 1947 to
\nAugust\t30, 1955. Admittedly, the age of  superannuation  of
\nthe company employees was 60 years. The Government of Madhya
\nPradesh\t took over the company with effect from\t August\t 31,
\n1955  by a notification of the same date.  The\tnotification
\nspecifically  stated that the existing staff of the  company
\nwould not be adversely affected with regard to
\n333<\/span>
\ntheir conditions of service. It is no doubt correct that  on
\nAugust 31, 1955 rules were operating in respect of the State
\nGovernment employees according to which the age of  superan-
\nnuation\t was 58 years but the persons who were service\twith
\nthe  company were taken into Government serving with-a\tspe-
\ncific  assurance  that their conditions\t of  service  were..
\nnot  to\t be adversely affected. When the.  State  Government
\ntakes  over a private company and gives an assurance of\t the
\ntypes it is but fair that the State Government should honour
\nthe same. Thus, the State Service rules which fixed the\t age
\nof  superannuation at 58 years could not be made  applicable
\nto  the\t appellant  and other employees\t of  the  taken-over
\ncompany.  We, therefore, do not agree with the reasoning  of
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas then urged that on the transfer  of\t appellant’s
\nservice\t to the Corporation he was governed by\tthe  Regula-
\ntions framed by the Corporation under the Act and Regulation
\n59 provided 58 years as the age of superannuation. We do not
\nagree  with  the  contention. The  State  Government  issued
\ndirections under Section 34 of the Act which we have  repro-
\nduced above. The said directions are binding on the corpora-
\ntion.  This Court in The General Manager, Mysore State\tRoad
\nTransport  Corporation v. Devraj<\/a> ors and another,  [1976]  2
\nSCC 862 interpreting Section 34 of the Act held as under:
\n“Directions given by the State Government are binding on the
\ncorporation  and it cannot depart from any general  instruc-
\ntions issued under sub-section (1) of Section 34 except with
\nthe  previous permission of the State Government.  Such\t in-
\nstructions have the force of law  ….\tTherefore breach  of
\nthe  directions given by State Government in the  matter  of
\ndisciplinary action against the respondents was a breach  of
\nthe  statutory duty and made the action of  the\t corporation
\namenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
\n226 of the Constitution”.\n<\/p>\n
    The State Government and also the Corporation had  given
\nassurance  to  the appellant and other\temployees  who\twere
\ntransferred  to\t the Corporation that  their  conditions  of
\nservice would not be adversely affected. The said  assurance
\nwas incorporated in the directions issued under the Act. The
\nCorporation cannot frame regulations contrary to the  direc-
\ntions issued by the State Government under Section 34 of the
\nAct. The age of superannution which the appellant was enjoy-
\ning  under the State Government could not be altered to\t his
\ndisadvantage by the
\n334<\/span>
\nCorporation. We are, therefore, of the view that  Regulation
\n59  flamed  by\tthe Corporation was not\t applicable  to\t the
\nappellant.  He was entitled to continue in service upto\t the
\nage of 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
    We, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and set aside
\nthe  judgment of the High Court. The appellant\thas  already
\nattained  the  age of 60 years. He is only entitled  to\t two
\nyears  emoluments. The respondents are directed to  pay\t the
\nsame  to  the appellant within three months from  today.  We
\nquantify the costs as Rs.5,000.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n335<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 276, 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 328 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: S.P. DUBEY Vs. RESPONDENT: M.P.S.R.T. CORPN. AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/10\/1990 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) […]<\/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-5165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990 - 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\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990\" \/>\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=\"1990-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-11T05:23:28+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\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-11T05:23:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990\"},\"wordCount\":1573,\"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\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990\",\"name\":\"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-11T05:23:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990 - 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\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-11T05:23:28+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\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990","datePublished":"1990-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-11T05:23:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990"},"wordCount":1573,"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\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990","name":"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-11T05:23:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-dubey-vs-m-p-s-r-t-corpn-and-anr-on-23-october-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.P. Dubey vs M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. And Anr on 23 October, 1990"}]},{"@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\/5165","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=5165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}