{"id":55075,"date":"2005-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005"},"modified":"2019-02-23T04:17:46","modified_gmt":"2019-02-22T22:47:46","slug":"administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Administrator, Kamala Nehru &#8230; vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Administrator, Kamala Nehru &#8230; vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7908 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nAdministrator, Kamala Nehru Memorial Hospital\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVinod Kumar\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/12\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t This appeal is directed against the judgment of the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court.  The<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge held that the termination of services<br \/>\nof the respondent was contrary to the provisions of Section<br \/>\n6(N) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in<br \/>\nshort the &#8216;U.P. Act&#8217;).  Directions were given for<br \/>\nreinstatement with continuity of service and 50% of the back<br \/>\nwages from the date of termination of the services till the<br \/>\ndate of award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn the basis of a dispute raised by the respondent a<br \/>\nreference was made by the State Government to the Labour<br \/>\nCourt, Allahabad for adjudication of the following question:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Whether the termination of services of its<br \/>\nworkman Vinod Kumar, Clerk w.e.f. 22.10.82 by<br \/>\nthe employer is proper or legal? If no, the<br \/>\nbenefit\/relief the concerned workman is entitled<br \/>\nfor the other with details?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondent&#8217;s case as set up in the dispute and as<br \/>\nwas canvassed before the labour court was that he was<br \/>\nemployed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the<br \/>\n&#8217;employer&#8217;) on 16.9.1980 as a clerk and had continued till<br \/>\n21st October, 1982 with some breaks.  According to him he<br \/>\nhad worked for 240 days continuously in one calendar year<br \/>\nand, therefore, was entitled to the protections of Section<br \/>\n6(N) of the U.P. Act.  The Labour Court held that the<br \/>\nrespondent had not established his claim.  It was noticed<br \/>\nthat the respondent was appointed for a limited period and<br \/>\nafter the expiry of that period he was removed from job.  On<br \/>\nthe basis of subsequent applications appointments used to be<br \/>\ngiven and he used to get engagement accordingly.  He<br \/>\nremained in continuous service only for 5 months.<br \/>\nTherefore, though he may have worked for 240 days or more<br \/>\nduring the period of his service he had not remained in<br \/>\ncontinuous service for one year.  The labour court found<br \/>\nthat he was engaged for a special work.  Aggrieved by the<br \/>\norder of the Labour Court a writ petition was filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent.  The High Court held (without indicating as to<br \/>\nwhich provision it was referring to) that the amendment<br \/>\nbrought in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the<br \/>\n&#8216;Act&#8217;) is prospective and not retrospective.  Reference was<br \/>\nmade to several decisions of various High Courts to hold<br \/>\nthat since amendment brought in the Act was prospective, the<br \/>\nview taken by the Labour Court that the respondent had not<br \/>\ncompleted 240 days&#8217; continuous service in one calendar year<br \/>\nsuffers from manifest error of law and therefore, was liable<br \/>\nto be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant submitted that though some changes were introduced<br \/>\nin the Act, so far as Section 6(N) of the U.P. Act is<br \/>\nconcerned the same was not amended and continued as before.<br \/>\nThe definition of &#8220;continuous service&#8221; is given in Section<br \/>\n2(g) of the U.P. Act and the same was clearly not applicable<br \/>\nin case of the respondent. It was further submitted that the<br \/>\nview expressed by the High Court regarding entitlement of<br \/>\nrespondent under Section 17-B of the Act is contrary to<br \/>\nfacts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the respondent on the other hand<br \/>\nsubmitted that reference was made though it was not<br \/>\nspecifically mentioned by the High Court to Section 2<br \/>\n(oo)(bb) of the Act which was amended and the same was<br \/>\nprospective and, therefore, the High Court&#8217;s view is<br \/>\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tIn order to appreciate rival submission reference to<br \/>\nSections 2(g) of the U.P. Act and Section 25-B of the Act is<br \/>\nnecessary.  The definitions read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tU.P. Act<br \/>\n \t&#8220;Section 2(g): &#8216;Continuous Service&#8217; means<br \/>\nuninterrupted service, and includes service<br \/>\nwhich may be interrupted merely on account of<br \/>\nsickness or authorized leave or an accident or<br \/>\na strike which is not illegal, or a lock out<br \/>\nor a cessation of work which is not due to any<br \/>\nfault on the part of the workman, and a<br \/>\nworkman, who during a period of twelve<br \/>\ncalendar months has actually worked in an<br \/>\nindustry for not less than two hundred and<br \/>\nforty days shall be deemed to have completed<br \/>\none year of continuous service in the<br \/>\nindustry.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Act<br \/>\nSection 25-B: DEFINITION OF CONTINUOUS<br \/>\nSERVICE.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the purposes of this Chapter, &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) a workman shall be said to be in<br \/>\ncontinuous service for a period if he is, for<br \/>\nthat period, in uninterrupted service,<br \/>\nincluding service which may be interrupted on<br \/>\naccount of sickness or authorised leave or an<br \/>\naccident or a strike which is not illegal, or<br \/>\na lock-out or a cessation of work which is<br \/>\nnot due to any fault on the part of the<br \/>\nworkman;\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) where a workman is not in continuous<br \/>\nservice within the meaning of clause (1) for<br \/>\na period of one year or six months, he shall<br \/>\nbe deemed to be in continuous service under<br \/>\nan employer &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) for a period of one year, if the<br \/>\nworkman, during a period of twelve<br \/>\ncalendar months preceding the date with<br \/>\nreference to which calculation is to be<br \/>\nmade, has actually worked under the<br \/>\nemployer for not less than &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) one hundred and ninety days in<br \/>\nthe case of a workman employed<br \/>\nbelow ground in a mine; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) two hundred and forty days, in<br \/>\nany other case;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) for a period of six months, if the<br \/>\nworkman, during a period of six calendar<br \/>\nmonths preceding the date with reference<br \/>\nto which calculation is to be made, has<br \/>\nactually worked under the employer for<br \/>\nnot less than &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) ninety-five days, in the case<br \/>\nof a workman employed below ground<br \/>\nin a mine; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) one hundred and twenty days,<br \/>\nin any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Explanation : For the purpose of clause (2),<br \/>\nthe number of days on which a workman has<br \/>\nactually worked under an employer shall<br \/>\ninclude the days on which &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) he has been laid-off under an<br \/>\nagreement or as permitted by<br \/>\nstanding orders made under the<br \/>\nIndustrial Employment (Standing<br \/>\nOrders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or<br \/>\nunder this Act or under any other<br \/>\nlaw applicable to the industrial<br \/>\nestablishment;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) he has been on leave with full<br \/>\nwages, earned in the previous year;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) he has been absent due to<br \/>\ntemporary disablement caused by<br \/>\naccident arising out of and in the<br \/>\ncourse of his employment; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv) in the case of a female, she<br \/>\nhas been on maternity leave; so,<br \/>\nhowever, that the total period of<br \/>\nsuch maternity leave does not<br \/>\nexceed twelve weeks.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of the clear definition of the continuous<br \/>\nservice in Section 2(g) which means uninterrupted service of<br \/>\nnot less than 240 days in one completed year, the respondent<br \/>\nwas clearly not entitled to any relief.  The interruptions<br \/>\nwhich are excluded while computing the uninterrupted service<br \/>\nare set out in the Section itself. They are on account of<br \/>\nsickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike<br \/>\nwhich is not illegal or a lock out or a cessation of work<br \/>\nwhich is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.<br \/>\nFurther Section 2(g) provides that worker who during the<br \/>\nperiod of twelve calendar months has actually worked in an<br \/>\nindustry for not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have<br \/>\ncompleted one year of continuous service in the industry.<br \/>\nAs a matter of fact the Labour Court has found that the<br \/>\nrespondent had worked for 5 months which is undisputedly<br \/>\nless than 240 days. The High Court seems to have adopted the<br \/>\ndefinition given in Section 25-B of the Act, which is<br \/>\nclearly impermissible. Definition of &#8220;Continuous Service&#8221;<br \/>\ngiven in Section 25-B of the Act is different from the<br \/>\ndefinition of the said expression given in Section 2(g) of<br \/>\nthe U.P. Act. By Act 36 of 1964, with effect from<br \/>\n19.12.1964, the definition in Section 25-B was substituted.<br \/>\nPrior to that the definition of &#8220;Continuous Service&#8221; was<br \/>\nsame in the Act and the U.P. Act. Section 2(eee) of the Act<br \/>\nwas omitted with effect from 19.12.1964 and changes were<br \/>\nintroduced in Section 25-B of the Act. But Section 2(g) of<br \/>\nthe U.P. Act remain unaltered. As per the pre-amended<br \/>\nposition it was necessary for the workman to continue in<br \/>\nservice in the 12 calendar months period to have actually<br \/>\nworked for at least 240 days. After the amendment the<br \/>\nposition is different. But the earlier position remains the<br \/>\nsame so far as the U.P. Act is concerned.   That being the<br \/>\ncase the High Court&#8217;s judgment is clearly unsustainable and<br \/>\nis accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t The High Court&#8217;s conclusions about entitlement of<br \/>\nrespondent under Section 17-B of the Act is relatable to<br \/>\nnon-employment and non-receipt of adequate remuneration of<br \/>\nthe workman. The appellant had adduced ample material to<br \/>\nshow that the respondent was enrolled as an Advocate in 1983<br \/>\nand was a busy practitioner with decent professional income.<br \/>\nIt had even given a list of large number of cases in which<br \/>\nthe respondent had appeared. Without any material to support<br \/>\nits conclusions, the High Court observed that &#8220;because of<br \/>\nthe compulsions of unemployment he has no option but to<br \/>\ncontinue for a short period as a practising Advocate&#8221;<br \/>\n(underlined for emphasis). The conclusions are clearly<br \/>\ncontrary to material on record. The respondent was not<br \/>\nentitled to any entitlement under Section 17-B of the Act.<br \/>\nHowever if any amount has already been paid in the peculiar<br \/>\nfacts of the case, the respondent shall not be entitled to<br \/>\nrefund the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Administrator, Kamala Nehru &#8230; vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7908 of 2004 PETITIONER: Administrator, Kamala Nehru Memorial Hospital RESPONDENT: Vinod Kumar DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/12\/2005 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; TARUN CHATTERJEE JUDGMENT: J U D G M [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55075","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Administrator, Kamala Nehru ... vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005 - 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\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Administrator, Kamala Nehru ... vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-22T22:47:46+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Administrator, Kamala Nehru &#8230; vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-22T22:47:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1609,\"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\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Administrator, Kamala Nehru ... vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-22T22:47:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Administrator, Kamala Nehru &#8230; vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Administrator, Kamala Nehru ... vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005 - 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\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Administrator, Kamala Nehru ... vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-22T22:47:46+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Administrator, Kamala Nehru &#8230; vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-22T22:47:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005"},"wordCount":1609,"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\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005","name":"Administrator, Kamala Nehru ... vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-22T22:47:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/administrator-kamala-nehru-vs-vinod-kumar-on-8-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Administrator, Kamala Nehru &#8230; vs Vinod Kumar on 8 December, 2005"}]},{"@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\/55075","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=55075"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55075\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}