{"id":5230,"date":"2004-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004"},"modified":"2015-05-01T10:42:50","modified_gmt":"2015-05-01T05:12:50","slug":"union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative … on 20 January, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative … on 20 January, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 20\/01\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU\nand\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\n\nW.P.No.608 of 1999 and W.P.No.635 of 1999\n\n\nIn W.P.No.608 of 1999\n\n1. Union of india,\n   Chairman, Telecom Commission,\n   Ministry of Communications,\n   Sanchar Bhavan,\n   20, Ashoka Road,\n   New Delhi 110 001.\n\n2. Asst. Director General (SGT),\n   Department of Telecommunications,\n   Ministry of Communications,\n   Govt. of India, Sanchar Bhavan,\n   20, Ashoka Road,\n   New Delhi 110 001.           ..Petitioners\n\n                -vs-\n\n1. Honble Central Administrative Tribunal\n   through its Registrar,\n   Madras Bench,\n   High Court Buildings,\n   Chennai-600 104.\n\n2. V.Narayanan\n3. J.Rajasekaran\n4. S.Sampath\n5. C.Mahalingam\n6. H.Thilagar Jayasingh\n7. K.Ramarathnam\n8. S.Valmiki\n9. S.Kannappan\n10.S.Lakshminarasimhan          ..Respondents\n\n\n\nIn W.P.No.635 of 1999\n\n1. Union of India,\n   rep. By its Secretary,\n   Ministry of Communications,\n   Sanchar Bhavan,\n   No.20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-1.\n\n2. The Director-eneral,\n   Department of Telecommunications,\n   Sanchar Bhavan,\n   No.20, Ashoka Road,\n   New Delhi 110 001.   ..Petitioners\n\n                -vs-\n\n\n1. Central Administrative Tribunal,\n   rep. By its Registrar,\n   Madras Bench.\n\n2. R.Venkataraman\n3. T.Parthasarathy\n4. R.muralidharan\n5. V.Annamalai\n6. V.K.balasubramanian\n7. N.Susheela\n8. V.Ramakrishnan\n9. G.Thyagarajan Samuel\n10.K.Venkateswaran\n11.S.balakrishnan\n12.M.K.Ramabhadran\n13.R.Sundaramurthy\n14.S.Chandrasekhar                      ..Respondents\n\n        Petitions filed under Art.226 of the Constitution  of  India,  praying\nfor the issue of writ of certiorari as stated therein.\n\n!For Petitioners\nin both W.Ps.   :  Mr.V.T.Gopalan,\n                Addl.  Solicitor General\n                assisted by\n                Mr.Vanathi Srinivasan,\n                Addl.  Central Governemnt\n                Standing Counsel.\n\n^For RR-2 to 10\nin W.P.608\/99   :  Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar,\n                for M\/s Row and Reddy\n\n                For RR-2,3,5,6\n                and 8 to 14\n                in W.P.No.635\/99 :  Mr.V.Bhiman\n\n                For RR-4 and 7  :  No appearance\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
(The order of the Court was made by R.JAYASIMHA BABU, J.)
\n        Numerous proceedings in relation to the determination of the seniority
\nof  Junior  Engineers,  before different Benches of the Central Administrative
\nTribunals, various High Courts and, on several occasions, before  the  Supreme
\nCourt   during  a  period  of  over  10  to  15  years,  with  regard  to  the
\ninterpretation and application of the instructions issued by the Government of
\nIndia, Department of Communications, on 28.6.1966, in Appendix  I,  Para  (v),
\nwhich  paragraph  is extracted below, culminated in the decision rendered by a
\nthree Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in  the  case  of  Union  of  India  v.
\nMadras  Telephone  SC & ST Social Welfare Association<\/a> (2000) 9 SCC 71, wherein
\nthe Court declared that “the question of seniority  in  the  feeder  cadre  of
\nJunior  Engineers,  when  persons  belonging  to the same recruitment year are
\nrecommended, has to be decided in  accordance  with  paragraph  (iii)  of  the
\nmemorandum  dated  28.6.1966  and in accordance with the statutory Recruitment
\nRules read with the appendix attached thereto for promotion to  the  posts  in
\nGroup ‘B’  service.    A  separate  list  has  to  be  made in respect of each
\nrecruitment year”.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Para (v) referred to in the previous paragraph reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        “All officials of a particular year  of  recruitment\/appointment,  who
\nhave  qualified  in  an earlier examination would rank en-bloc senior to those
\nofficials of the  same  year  of  recruitment\/appointment,  who  qualified  in
\nsubsequent examination.”\n<\/p>\n
        3.   A  bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad had,
\non an application filed by two  Junior  Engineers,  Paramanand  Lal  and  Brij
\nMohan,  interpreted  this  paragraph  as  requiring the Department to rank all
\nthose who passed the qualifying examination above those who  passed  the  same
\nexamination  at  a later point of time, without reference to the year in which
\nthey had been recruited.  That decision was affirmed  by  the  Allahabad  High
\nCourt  and  a Special Leave Petition against that Judgment was rejected by the
\nSupreme Court.  Thereafter, there were  numerous  proceedings  before  various
\nBenches  of  the  Tribunal,  claiming  relief similar to the one that had been
\ngranted to Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan.  One such proceeding went up  to  the
\nSupreme Court  which,  in  the  case  of  Union of India v.  Madras Telephones
\nScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association<\/a> (1997) 10 SCC
\n226, in which it was held that  “the  eligibility  list  has  to  be  prepared
\naccording  to the year of recruitment\/appointment and neither according to the
\nyear of passing  of  the  examination  nor  with  reference  to  the  year  of
\nconfirmation.”\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  matter was thereafter brought before a three Judge Bench, as
\nthere was a conflict between the judgment rendered by the two Judge  Bench  of
\nthe  Supreme  Court  and the law that had been laid down by the Allahabad High
\nCourt against which the Supreme Court had declined  to  grant  Special  Leave.
\nAfter  a  comprehensive  and  in-depth examination of the proceedings that had
\ngone on prior to t he pronouncement of the judgment, on 26th April, 2000,  the
\nthree  Judge Bench held that separate list had to be prepared for each year of
\nrecruitment in the feeder category.  Within the  list  so  prepared  for  each
\nyear, persons who passed the eligibility test are to be ranked higher to those
\nwho  passed the same test later, even though they may have been ranked seniors
\nearlier.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The Court, however, while laying down the law in those terms,  did
\nnot deprive Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan of the benefit which they had derived
\nby  virtue  of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had interpreted
\nthe Rule in a different manner and had directed that Paramanand Lal  and  Brij
\nMohan  be  treated  as seniors even to those who had been recruited in earlier
\nyears, solely by taking the date on which they passed the eligibility test  as
\nthe decisive factor for determining seniority.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   At  the  end  of paragraph 17 of the judgment, the Court made the
\nfollowing observation:-\n<\/p>\n
        “We, however, make it clear that the persons who have already got  the
\nbenefit  like Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan by virtue of the judgments in their
\nfavour, will not suffer and their promotion already made will not be  affected
\nby this judgment of ours.”\n<\/p>\n
By  the same judgment, the Court, at paragraph 19, allowed the appeal that had
\nbeen preferred by Parmanand Lal against his reversion–a reversion  which  had
\nbeen  effected  after  the  decision of the Supreme Court in the year 1997–to
\nwhich we have already made a reference earlier.  The three Judge Bench was  of
\nthe  view  that  a  benefit  which  had  been granted to Lal, as a result of a
\njudgment by which the State was bound, could not be taken away by reason of  a
\njudgment   pronounced   later   in  other  proceedings  though  that  judgment
\ninterpreted the very Rule in a different manner.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The respondents before  us  in  these  writ  petitions,  who  were
\napplicants  before  the Tribunal, contend that the observation of the Court at
\nthe end of paragraph 17, which we have extracted above, enables them to  claim
\nseniority  over  Parmanand  Lal  and  Brij Mohan, as, admittedly, Lal and Brij
\nMohan are juniors to them.  They also relied upon the fact that  in  the  year
\n1992 they had also filed an application before the Madras Bench of the Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal claiming a relief similar to that granted to Parmanand
\nLal  and  Brij  Mohan,  as they had passed the eligibility test before Lal and
\nBrij Mohan had.  The Tribunal, on that  application,  had  directed  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  before  it  be  given  the benefit similar to that which had been
\ngranted by the Allahabad Bench,  whose  decision  had  been  affirmed  by  the
\nAllahabad High Court.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Thereafter,  the  petitioners  before  the  Tribunal were granted
\npromotion with effect from the year 1980,  some  of  them  having  been  given
\npromotion  with  effect  from the year 1981 and their seniority was also fixed
\nwith reference to those years.  The respondents before us, being aggrieved  by
\nthat,  filed  a contempt petition which was rejected by the Tribunal observing
\nthat as to whether or not the petitioners have been given the correct  ranking
\nin  the  seniority  list was a matter to be decided in independent proceedings
\nand not in the contempt petition.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The impugned order of the Tribunal is one which  was  rendered  by
\nthe  Tribunal on the further application which the respondents before us filed
\nsoon after the dismissal of the contempt application.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Learned  counsel  for  these  respondents  submitted  before  us
\nvigorously  that  they  should be accorded the same treatment as Parmanand Lal
\nand Brij Mohan and that they should be ranked higher to Lal  and  Brij  Mohan,
\nwho  were  not  only  their  juniors  but  are also persons who had passed the
\neligibility test at a later point of time.  It was submitted by  counsel  that
\nthe principles  of res judicata are attracted.  In support of that submission,
\ncounsel invited our attention to the decisions of the  Supreme  Court  in  the
\ncases of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v.  Union of India<\/a> (1989)
\n4 SCC 187; Union of India v.  Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\nTribes  Social  Welfare  Association<\/a> (1997) 10 SCC 226; and Union of India and
\nothers v.  Southern Railway Employees Co-operative Stores  Workmen  Union  and
\nothers<\/a> (1998) 5 SCC 530.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The principles of res judicata are not attracted in this case, as
\nthe  matter  is  now squarely governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in
\nthe case of Union of India v.    Madras  Telephone  SC  &  ST  Social  Welfare
\nAssociation<\/a> (2000)  9  SCC  71.  The Court therein considered the cases of all
\npersons affected by the application of this rule and carved out  an  exception
\nonly  in favour of certain persons, after having laid down the law and enabled
\nthose persons to retain the benefit if such benefit had been received prior to
\nthe judgment of the three judge Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The class which could claim seniority contrary to  the  law  laid
\ndown  by the Supreme Court in that case are persons who had received promotion
\nlike Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan.  The implication clearly is  that  if  such
\npromotion  had  not  been given it could not be done subsequent to the date of
\nthe judgment of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  It is no doubt true, as contended  by  learned  counsel  for  the
\nrespondents,  that the Tribunal had in fact directed the Union to grant to the
\npetitioners before the Tribunal the same benefits as had been granted  to  the
\npetitioners  before  the  Allahabad  Bench of the Tribunal, whose decision had
\nbeen affirmed by the Allahabad High Court.  Subsequent  to  that  ruling,  the
\nseniority  given to the petitioners was in fact revised and further promotions
\ngiven to them on the basis of that seniority.  The reference to  ‘benefit’  in
\nthe  last  sentence of paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Supreme Court is to
\nbe understood as the benefit actually given and is not  to  be  equated  to  a
\ndirection given by the Tribunal to follow a judgment rendered by the Allahabad
\nBench and  affirmed  the Allahabad High Court.  It is the admitted case of the
\npetitioners before the Tribunal that they had not received  any  such  benefit
\nalthough it was their claim that they were entitled to such benefit.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  After the decision rendered by the three Judge Bench, there is no
\nscope whatsoever now for the respondents before us to claim a benefit contrary
\nto  the law laid down in that judgment as they had not received such a benefit
\nprior to that judgment.  It is not open to this Court to direct the  State  to
\nact contrary  to  the  law  laid  down  by the Supreme Court.  Even though the
\nrespondents before us were not parties to that judgment, the law  declared  by
\nthe Court binds them as well.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   The  respondents  before  us,  therefore, cannot claim seniority
\nsolely on the basis of the year in which  they  passed  the  eligibility  test
\nwithout  reference  to the year of recruitment of persons who had qualified by
\npassing the test, but at a later point of time.  As  held  by  the  two  Judge
\nBench in the case of Union of India v.  Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled  Tribes Social Welfare Association<\/a> (1997) 10 SCC 226, which judgment
\nwas affirmed by the three Judge Bench later, the year of  recruitment  is  the
\nrelevant  year  and  it is only among those recruited in the same year persons
\nwho passed the qualifying test earlier will rank senior to  those  who  passed
\nthe test  later.    The  seniority  acquired  by the employees who had entered
\nservice earlier is not in any way affected vis-a-vis  those  who  entered  the
\nservice in later years.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   Although the judgment rendered by the three judge Bench does not
\nspecifically refer to a situation where  a  person  who  had  entered  service
\nearlier  passes  the  eligibility test years later and before his passing that
\neligibility test,  persons  recruited  in  later  years  who  had  passed  the
\neligibility  test earlier are promoted, it would appear reasonable to take the
\nview that such a person will necessarily rank junior in the higher cadre as he
\nwould be entering that higher cadre only later, after persons who had  entered
\nservice  in  the  lower cadre in a later year had entered that higher cadre by
\nvirtue of having passed the eligibility test earlier and having been  selected
\nto fill a vacancy which was then available.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   The  direction  given  by  the  Tribunal  in  the impugned order
\ndirecting the Union to grant notional seniority and monetary benefits  to  the
\npetitioners before it by taking the year of their passing the eligibility test
\nas  the  criterion  for  determining  seniority  cannot  be sustained, as that
\ndirection is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court  in
\nthe case  of  Union  of  India  v.    Madras  Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare
\nAssociation<\/a> (2000) 9 SCC 71.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  We, however, make it clear  that  we  have  not  dealt  with  the
\nseniority  properly  assignable  to the petitioners before the Tribunal in the
\nlight of the principles laid down by  the  Supreme  Court  in  that  judgment,
\nalthough  it  was  submitted  before  us  by  the learned Additional Solicitor
\nGeneral that a seniority list has in fact been  prepared  in  accordance  with
\nthat judgment and that the seniority that had been assigned to the petitioners
\nearlier  has  remained undisturbed even after the new seniority list was drawn
\nup.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  The writ petitions are  allowed.    The  impugned  order  of  the
\nTribunal is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Registrar,
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal,
\nHigh Court Buildings,
\nMadras-600 104.\n<\/p>\n
Dev\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative … on 20 January, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20\/01\/2004 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU and THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM W.P.No.608 of 1999 and W.P.No.635 of 1999 In W.P.No.608 of 1999 1. Union of india, Chairman, Telecom Commission, Ministry […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Honble Central Administrative ... on 20 January, 2004 - 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-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative ... on 20 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-01T05:12:50+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=\"12 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-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative … on 20 January, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T05:12:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2076,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative ... on 20 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T05:12:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative … on 20 January, 2004\"}]},{\"@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 vs Honble Central Administrative ... on 20 January, 2004 - 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-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative ... on 20 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-01T05:12:50+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative … on 20 January, 2004","datePublished":"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T05:12:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004"},"wordCount":2076,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004","name":"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative ... on 20 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T05:12:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-honble-central-administrative-on-20-january-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Honble Central Administrative … on 20 January, 2004"}]},{"@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\/5230","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=5230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}