{"id":56475,"date":"2006-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006"},"modified":"2017-01-08T21:13:50","modified_gmt":"2017-01-08T15:43:50","slug":"m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 15\/02\/2006\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR\n\nW.P.No.3974 of 2003\n\n1. M.Paranthaman\n2. S.Nagarajan                                  .. Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Union of India, rep. by its\n    Secretary to Government of India,\n    Ministry of Agriculture,\n    (Department of Animal Husbandary &amp;\n        Dairying),\n    Krishi Bhavan,\n    New Delhi-1.\n\n2. The Director,\n    Central Cattle Breeding Farm,\n    Avadi (Alamathi),\n    Chennai-600 052.\n\n3. The Registrar,\n    Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench,\n    High Court Campus,\n    Chennai.                                           .. Respondents\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,\npraying  for  issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, after calling for\nconcerned records relating to the impugned order dated 9.1.20 03 in O.A.No.950\nof 2002 passed by the Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Chennai  Bench,  and\nquash  the  same  and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate\nthe petitioners in service with effect from 9.10.1992 i.e.  the date on  which\nthey  were  denied employment and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise\nthe services of the 1st petitioner with effect from 24.7.1991 as per the order\nof the 1st respondent No.8-7\/89-LD.II, dated 2.8.1991 with  all  consequential\nbenefits  and grant temporary status to the second petitioner with effect from\n1.9.1993 as has been done in the case of other casual labourers and grant them\nall consequential monetary and other benefits.\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.M.Gnanasekar\n\n^For respondents :  Mr.L.M.Praghasam for RR-1 &amp; 2\n                R-3 Tribunal\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(The Order of the Court was made by R.Sudhakar,J.)<\/p>\n<p>        The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.1.200 3<br \/>\nin   O.A.No.950  of  2002  passed  by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,<br \/>\ndismissing the Original Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  prayer  before  the  Tribunal  in  O.A.No.950  of 2002 is as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;a.  Set aside the order No.  55\/XIV\/Lab.\/2002\/1342, dated  08.10.2002<br \/>\npassed by the 2nd respondent, and<br \/>\n        b.   Direct  the  Respondents  to re-instate the Applicants in service<br \/>\nwith effect from  08.10.1992  i.e.    the  date  on  which  they  were  denied<br \/>\nemployment  and  direct  the Respondents to regularise the services of the 1st<br \/>\nApplicant w.e.f.    24.07.1991  as  per  the  order  of  the  1st   respondent<br \/>\nNo.8-7\/89-LD.II,  dated  02.08.1991  with all consequential benefits and grant<br \/>\ntemporary status; to the second Applicant with effect from 0 1.09.1993 as  has<br \/>\nbeen  done  in  the  case  of  other  Casual  Labourers  and  grant  them  all<br \/>\nconsequential monetary and other benefits.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  In the instant case, the relief sought for by the first petitioner<br \/>\nhas been granted by the proceedings of the respondents as is evident from  the<br \/>\ncounter affidavit.    The  first  petitioner confirms that the relief has been<br \/>\ngranted to him.  Hence, in the writ petition, we are concerned with the second<br \/>\npetitioner alone.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The brief facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The petitioners were initially appointed on 8.10.1982 on casual  basis<br \/>\nin the  second  respondent-Central  Cattle  Breeding  Farm.    On 2.8.1991 , a<br \/>\nDepartmental Selection  Committee  found  the  first  and  second  petitioners<br \/>\nsuitable for  the  post  of  Agriculture  Attendant.   On 26.8.1991, the first<br \/>\npetitioner was appointed as Agriculture Attendant on adhoc basis and continued<br \/>\ntill 31.12.1992.  The second petitioner was not appointed for want of vacancy.<br \/>\nOn 27.9.1992, the  petitioners  were  implicated  in  a  criminal  case.    On<br \/>\n30.9.1992,  the  Sub-Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, sent a letter<br \/>\nto the second respondent about the  involvement  of  the  petitioners  in  the<br \/>\ncriminal case.      On   13.10   .1992,   fearing  arrest,  petitioners  filed<br \/>\nCrl.O.P.No.13008 of 1992 and obtained  an  order  of  anticipatory  bail  with<br \/>\nconditions.   On  4.1.1993,  the  Sub-Inspector of Police gave a letter to the<br \/>\nsecond respondent stating that he has no objection for taking the  petitioners<br \/>\nback to  work.    On  28.2.1993, it is stated that the petitioners reported to<br \/>\nduty and were not allowed to join, therefore, a representation was made on the<br \/>\nsame day.  Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.A.No.1331 and 1332 of 1993  for<br \/>\na direction  to  reinstate  them.    On  28.3.1995, the Tribunal dismissed the<br \/>\napplications on the ground that the prayer for reengagement cannot be  granted<br \/>\nin view of the pendency of the criminal case.  It was however observed that it<br \/>\nwas  open  to  the  respondents  to  re-engage  the  petitioners  if  they are<br \/>\nexonerated by the Police or Court.  It was also observed by the Tribunal  that<br \/>\nthe  petitioners  were working from 1982 onwards and therefore, the benefit of<br \/>\nCasual Labourers (Grant of Temporary  Status  and  Regularisation)  Scheme  of<br \/>\nGovernment  of  India,  1993,  can  be  considered after the completion of the<br \/>\ncriminal case.  By order dated 20.7.2001, both the petitioners were  acquitted<br \/>\nin the  criminal  case.    After  the  acquittal  by  the  criminal  Court,  a<br \/>\nrepresentation dated 26.7.2001 was made to  the  second  respondent  to  grant<br \/>\ntemporary status   with   effect   from   1.10.1993.      Thereafter,  several<br \/>\ncorrespondences took place between the petitioner and  the  second  respondent<br \/>\nand  by  lawyer&#8217;s  notice  dated  29.12.2001,  the petitioners called upon the<br \/>\nsecond respondent to implement final order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1331  and<br \/>\n1332 of  1993  dated  28.3.1995  and  reinstate  them  in  service.  The first<br \/>\nrespondent by letter dated 4.1.2002 also called upon the second respondent  to<br \/>\nfurnish certain details relating to casual labourers, the said letter reads as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Subject:  Re-instatement of Shri S.Nagarajan, Casual   Labour     and    Shri<br \/>\nM.Paranthaman, Agri.            Attdt.,(Ad-hoc) in CCBF, Chennaireg.<br \/>\nSir,<br \/>\n        I am directed to refer to your letter  No.26\/XIV\/Labour\/2001\/dated  30<br \/>\n.7.2001  on  the  subject  mentioned  above and to request you to furnish full<br \/>\ndetails of casual labour at present and at the time  when  above  two  labours<br \/>\nwere sent  out  of  job.  Whether these two are covered by the scheme of 1993.<br \/>\nOther details like how many junior  persons  have  been  regularised,  whether<br \/>\nthere  is  any  vacancy  at  present  and  whether  it  is a permanent post or<br \/>\ntemporary one and if temporary one whether it is continued for the block years<br \/>\n2001-02 may also be furnished.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, on 29.1.2002, the second respondent furnished  details  including<br \/>\nthe three  vacancies in Group-D temporary post.  The petitioners filed another<br \/>\nO.A.No.683 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking  direction  to  reinstate  them<br \/>\nwith consequential benefits.  The Tribunal, by order dated 26.7.2002, passed a<br \/>\nfinal order directing the respondents to dispose of the representation and the<br \/>\nnotice,  both  dated 26.7.200 1, within a period of six weeks from the date of<br \/>\ncommunication of the order.  By proceedings dated 8.10.2002, the  request  for<br \/>\nreinstatement  was rejected by the second respondent stating that there was no<br \/>\nwork at the Farm and no casual labourers were appointed then.  Therefore,  the<br \/>\npetitioners  filed  O.A.No.950  of  2002  challenging  the order of the second<br \/>\nrespondent dated 8.10.2002 denying reinstatement and sought for  reinstatement<br \/>\nwith effect  from  8.10.1992.    This  was contested by the respondents and by<br \/>\norder dated 9.1.2003, the Tribunal held that there was no evidence before  the<br \/>\nTribunal  to  show  that  the posts were available in order to accommodate the<br \/>\npetitioners so as to give a direction for reinstatement or to regularise their<br \/>\nservices, in view of the position that there was no work in the  Farm  and  no<br \/>\ncasual workers were appointed.  The Tribunal held that the second applicant is<br \/>\nonly the  casual  labourer,  and therefore, rejected his claim.  As far as the<br \/>\nfirst applicant  is  concerned,  the  Tribunal  directed  the  respondents  to<br \/>\nconsider  the  case  of  the  first  applicant  as  and  when the post is made<br \/>\navailable or sanctioned by the Government of India.  As against the same,  the<br \/>\nwrit petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.    Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  would  submit  that  the<br \/>\npetitioners were working from 1982.  But for the criminal case pending against<br \/>\nthem, they should have been considered for  regularisation  and  consequential<br \/>\nbenefit under  the  said  Scheme.    The  petitioners  also pleaded that their<br \/>\njuniors have been regularised and it is only because  of  the  criminal  case,<br \/>\nthey could  not  be  considered at the appropriate time.  However, as and when<br \/>\nthey were acquitted in the criminal case, they sought  for  reinstatement  and<br \/>\nfor regularisation which has been negatived arbitrarily.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   A  counter has been filed by the second respondent wherein it has<br \/>\nbeen stated that the case of the first petitioner was considered  pursuant  to<br \/>\nthe  order  of the Tribunal dated 9.1.2003 and the Ministry has sanctioned and<br \/>\napproved the regular appointment of the  first  petitioner  in  Group-D  post.<br \/>\nHowever,  as regards the second petitioner, it is submitted that he was only a<br \/>\ncasual  labourer  and  he  was  not  considered  for  regularisation  by   the<br \/>\nDepartmental  Promotion  Committee  for  want  of  vacancy  and  therefore, he<br \/>\ncontinued as casual labourer upto 30.9 .1992.  It is also  admitted  that  one<br \/>\npost  of Agriculture Attendant is lying vacant since 30.9.1992 which could not<br \/>\nbe filled due to ban on recruitment and  pending  decision  of  the  Court  in<br \/>\nO.A.No.1332 of  1993 .  It was further contended in the counter that since the<br \/>\nTribunal has directed that the case of the first petitioner  alone  should  be<br \/>\nconsidered,  the  case  of  the  second  petitioner  was not considered by the<br \/>\nDepartment.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  At the time of final hearing of the above writ  petition,  learned<br \/>\ncounsel  for the petitioner brought to our attention an order of this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.No.15668 of 2001, dated 20.2.2004, as confirmed by the First Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt in W.A.No.2144 of 2005 by judgment dated 22.11.2005.  In that case,  the<br \/>\nwrit  petition  relates  to  the claim of the Union representing the employees<br \/>\nworking in the second respondentFarm.  In the said writ  petition,  the  claim<br \/>\nwas  for regularisation of certain number of casual workmen on the ground that<br \/>\nthey had completed 2 40 days in 12 calendar months as required under  law  and<br \/>\nalso on the basis of the undertaking made by the Management before the Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal  in  its order dated 5.6.1989.  A learned single Judge<br \/>\nof this Court therefore allowed the writ petition and quashed the award  dated<br \/>\n8.8.2001   passed  by  the  Tribunal  and  directed  the  Management  to  pass<br \/>\nappropriate orders regularising the services of casual labourers of the  Union<br \/>\nwith  effect  from  the  date  of  raising  the  industrial dispute before the<br \/>\ncompetent authority and for consequential benefit of completion of  continuity<br \/>\nof  service  for all terminal\/ retirement benefits from the date of completion<br \/>\nof 240 days&#8217; services in 12 calendar months in  the  Management.    As  stated<br \/>\nearlier,  this  order  of  the learned single Judge was confirmed by the First<br \/>\nBench of this Court.  Placing reliance on the abovesaid decision,  the  second<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that he would be entitled to the same relief as he has<br \/>\ncompleted  240 days in 12 calendar months long before and therefore, his claim<br \/>\nalso to be considered on the same basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The fact that the second petitioner was appointed in 1982  is  not<br \/>\ndisputed  and  that  he  has  been in service for more than ten years when the<br \/>\nuntoward incident happened wherein petitioners were implicated in the criminal<br \/>\ncase and ultimately acquitted.  But for the said event, the case of the second<br \/>\npetitioner should have been considered for regularisation under the said  1993<br \/>\nScheme.   The criminal case has also ended in favour of the second petitioner.<br \/>\nThe only ground now stated is that there is no work at the Farm.    Hence,  at<br \/>\nthe  present  moment,  there is no impediment to take the second petitioner in<br \/>\nthe vacancy admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit.  It  is  not<br \/>\ndisputed  that pursuant to the order of the Court in W.P.No.15668 of 2001, all<br \/>\nthe casual labourers (workers) have been taken for regular appointment.  There<br \/>\ncannot be a different treatment to the second petitioner.  In any  event,  the<br \/>\nonly  reason given in the counter affidavit is that the second petitioner is a<br \/>\ncasual labourer and was not considered for regularisation by the  Departmental<br \/>\nPromotion  Committee for want of vacancy and therefore, he continued as casual<br \/>\nlabourer upto September 1992.  However, it is also stated  that  one  post  of<br \/>\nAgriculture Attendant  is  lying vacant since 30.9.1992.  That being the case,<br \/>\nthere cannot be any impediment to consider the claim of the second  petitioner<br \/>\nin the said post.  It is not disputed by the respondents that the 199 3 Scheme<br \/>\nwill not apply to the second petitioner.  Hence, the order rejecting the claim<br \/>\nof second respondent is bad.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  The writ petition is allowed in part.  The second petitioner shall<br \/>\nbe  taken  into  appointment  from  9.10.2003  as  is  the  case  of the first<br \/>\npetitioner.  However, the second petitioner shall  not  be  entitled  for  any<br \/>\nmonetary  benefits for the past period till today and such period can be taken<br \/>\ninto for the purpose of increment and other benefits in future.    The  second<br \/>\npetitioner shall be permitted to join duty within thirty days from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of copy of this order.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>cs<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  Union of India, rep.  by its<br \/>\nSecretary to Government of India,<br \/>\nMinistry of Agriculture,<br \/>\n(Department of Animal Husbandary &amp;<br \/>\n        Dairying),<br \/>\nKrishi Bhavan,<br \/>\nNew Delhi-1.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Director,<br \/>\nCentral Cattle Breeding Farm,<br \/>\nAvadi (Alamathi),<br \/>\nChennai-600 052.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Registrar,<br \/>\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench,<br \/>\nHigh Court Campus,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15\/02\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.3974 of 2003 1. M.Paranthaman 2. S.Nagarajan .. Petitioners -Vs- 1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56475","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - 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\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-08T15:43:50+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-08T15:43:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1872,\"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\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\",\"name\":\"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-08T15:43:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - 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\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-08T15:43:50+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-08T15:43:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006"},"wordCount":1872,"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\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006","name":"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-08T15:43:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-paranthaman-vs-union-of-india-on-15-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Paranthaman vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/56475","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=56475"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56475\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}