{"id":60402,"date":"2002-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002"},"modified":"2018-06-13T23:47:05","modified_gmt":"2018-06-13T18:17:05","slug":"arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital &#8230; on 24 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital &#8230; on 24 January, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 475, 96 (2002) DLT 699, 2002 (93) FLR 625, 2003 (1) SLJ 54 Delhi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S K Kaul<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S K Kaul<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. <\/p>\n<p>1. The petitioner was employed as a Welfare Officer<br \/>\nwith respondent No. 4 on 1.3.1993 and the services of the<br \/>\npetitioner were terminated. The petitioner is aggrieved by<br \/>\nthe termination of his services.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The termination letter is dated 22.11.2001<br \/>\n(Annexure P2) which is a simpliciter termination in terms of<br \/>\npara 5 of the letter of appointment dated 2.3.1993. Para 5<br \/>\nof the letter of appointment 2.3.1993 is as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;After confirmation, two months&#8217;<br \/>\nnotice on either side shall be required<br \/>\nfor the termination of this arrangement.<br \/>\nThe Management can, however, dispense with<br \/>\nyour services any time by paying you two<br \/>\nmonths salary in lieu of notice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3. In view of the aforesaid fact there is no doubt<br \/>\nthat termination is in terms of the appointment letter.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that<br \/>\nthe terms of his appointment cannot over ride the provisions<br \/>\nof the Factories Act 1948 and the rules made there under<br \/>\nbeing the Delhi Factories Rules 1956. Learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner drew my attention to the provisions of Rule<br \/>\n76-A dealing with welfare officers. The relevant Sub-rule<br \/>\n4B of the said rule is as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;(b) The conditions of service of a<br \/>\nWelfare Officer shall be the same as of<br \/>\nother members of the staff of<br \/>\ncorresponding status in the factory,<br \/>\nprovided that no punishment shall be<br \/>\ninflicted on a Welfare Officer without<br \/>\nobtaining the prior approval of the Chief<br \/>\nCommissioner.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\ncontended that the services could not be terminated except<br \/>\nin accordance with the said sub-rule after obtaining the<br \/>\nprior approval of the Chief Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Learned senior counsel for respondent on the other<br \/>\nhand has referred to the judgment of learned Single Judge of<br \/>\nthis Court in CW 1396\/1988 decided on 11.3.1998   S.N. Saxena<br \/>\nv. D.C.M.  where this very question has been considered.<br \/>\nIn the light of dictum laid down by the Supreme court in the<br \/>\ncase of   <a href=\"\/doc\/911769\/\">Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma<br \/>\nand Anr.,<\/a>   .\n<\/p>\n<p>6. In S.N. Saxena case (Supra) an issue was raised<br \/>\nthat though the order of termination was a simpliciter order<br \/>\nof discharge, the same was only a camouflage and on a proper<br \/>\nenquiry, it will be found that the dismissal amounts to a<br \/>\npunishment. The learned Single Judge referred to the<br \/>\nobservations of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of<br \/>\nthe rules and came to the conclusion that if a welfare<br \/>\nofficer is dismissed without applying for concurrence, he<br \/>\nmay make an appeal but only in a case where a punishment has<br \/>\nbeen imposed. If termination is in terms of the contract of<br \/>\nemployment. then such a welfare officer cannot make any<br \/>\ngrievance. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge in<br \/>\npara &#8216;9&#8217; is as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;9. The provision in Clause 4<br \/>\nwould empower the management to dispense<br \/>\ngiving three months&#8217; notice as wad done by<br \/>\nthe employer. Therefore, when the<br \/>\ncontract of employment provides that the<br \/>\nservice of the employee could be dispensed<br \/>\nwith the petitioner cannot be heard to<br \/>\ncontend that the first respondent lacked<br \/>\npower to pass the order. It is on this<br \/>\npoint the dictum laid down by the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt would apply to the facts of this<br \/>\ncase.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent that against the said decision Letters Patent<br \/>\nAppeal was preferred being LPA No. 522\/1998 which was<br \/>\ndismissed vide order dated 11.7.2001 agreeing with the<br \/>\ninterpretation of the learned Single Judge of Sub-rule 4 B<br \/>\nof Rule 76-A of the Delhi Factories Rules, 1950. The<br \/>\naforesaid decisions are based on the ratio laid down by the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd.&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra) as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Mr. Setalvad, however, is right in<br \/>\ncontending that the appeal preferred by<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 before respondent No. 2 was<br \/>\nincompetent. Rule 6(6) no doubt enables a<br \/>\nWelfare Officer to make an appeal to the<br \/>\nState Government if punishment has been<br \/>\nimposed upon him contrary to the<br \/>\nrequirements of the proviso to Rule 6(3),<br \/>\nwithout obtaining the concurrence of the<br \/>\nLabour Commissioner. The scheme of the<br \/>\nrelevant Rules appears to be that if the<br \/>\nmanagement applies for concurrence, and the<br \/>\nconcurrence is not given by the Labour<br \/>\nCommissioner, the management can appeal<br \/>\nunder Rule 6(5). If the concurrence is given, of<br \/>\nif a Welfare Officer is dismissed without<br \/>\napplying for concurrence, he may make an<br \/>\nappeal under Rule 6(6); but before such an<br \/>\nappeal can be competent, it must appear that<br \/>\nthe punishment mentioned in Clause  (v) of<br \/>\nSub-rule (3) of Rule has been imposed upon<br \/>\nhim. In the present case, it is difficult<br \/>\nto hold that any such punishment has been<br \/>\nimposed upon respondent No. 1 All that the<br \/>\nappellant has done in the respondent No. 1 by<br \/>\nvirtue of Clause 4 of his terms of appointment.<br \/>\nWhen respondent No. 1 was appointed a Welfare<br \/>\nOfficer by the appellant, the terms of his<br \/>\nfare officer by the appellant, the terms of<br \/>\nhis employment were communicated to him by a<br \/>\nletter dated March 2, 1956. Clause 4 of this<br \/>\ncommunication expressly provided that during<br \/>\nthe period of probation, the appellant could<br \/>\nterminated respondent No. 1&#8217;s services without<br \/>\nnotice, and after confirmation, with one<br \/>\nmonth&#8217;s notice or one month&#8217;s salary in lieu<br \/>\nof notice. The order terminating his<br \/>\nservices specifically refers to an earlier<br \/>\nletter addressed to him on September<br \/>\n23, 1961. In this letter, the appellant<br \/>\nexpressly informed respondent No. 1 that if<br \/>\nhe did not proceed to Kymore Cement Works<br \/>\nwithin the time allowed to him, his services<br \/>\nwould stand terminated from september<br \/>\n26, 1961, and he would be paid his salary up<br \/>\nto the 25th September, 1961, as well as one<br \/>\nmonth&#8217;s salary in lieu of notice and other<br \/>\ndues as per Company&#8217;s rules. It is thus<br \/>\nclear that in terminating the services  of<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1, the appellant was merely<br \/>\nexercising its right to put an end to<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1&#8217;s services with one month&#8217;s<br \/>\nsalary in lieu of notice; and such an order<br \/>\ncannot be said to amount to any punishment<br \/>\nat all; it is na order of discharge served<br \/>\nby the employer on his employee strictly<br \/>\nwithin the terms of the employee&#8217;s<br \/>\nconditions of service. There is not doubt<br \/>\nthat when Rule 6(3)(v) refers to dismissal or<br \/>\ntermination of service in any other manner,<br \/>\nit takes in dismissal or termination of<br \/>\nservice in any other manner, it takes in<br \/>\ndismissal or termination of service which is<br \/>\nin the nature of a punitive termination of<br \/>\nservice. Rule 6(3) makes it clear that<br \/>\nClauses (1) to (v) refer to punishments which<br \/>\ncould be imposed on Welfare Officers by<br \/>\nwhich could be imposed on Welfare Officers<br \/>\nby the management; and so, before Rule 6(3)(v)<br \/>\ncan be invoked by respondent No. 1, it must<br \/>\nbe shown that the termination of his<br \/>\nservices was in the nature of a punishment.<br \/>\nThe termination of respondent No. 1&#8217;s<br \/>\nservices in terms of Clause 4 of his conditions<br \/>\nof service is no mere than a discharge, and<br \/>\nas such is not a punishment; and so, it is<br \/>\noutside Rule 6(3) altogether. Therefore, we<br \/>\nare satisfied that the appeal preferred by<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 before respondent No. 2 was<br \/>\nnot competent under Rule 6(6).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge, of Division Bench and of the Supreme Court,<br \/>\nthis issue does not remain open to be agitated by the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already made<br \/>\na grievance that though initially the services of the<br \/>\npetitioner were dispensed with since it was claimed that<br \/>\nnumber of persons working have been reduced under 500,<br \/>\nSubsequently an advertisement was issued on 17th January,<br \/>\n2002 in the Hindustan Times (annexure P5) in which the post<br \/>\nof Welfare Officer has been advertised. It is also<br \/>\ncontended that the plea of respondent No. 4 that the workers<br \/>\nwere below 500 have been found to be false by the concerned<br \/>\nauthorities. Assuming the contention of the petitioner is<br \/>\ncorrect that the whole process was only a ruse to get rid of<br \/>\npetitioner, the fact remains that eh order of termination<br \/>\nis only a simpliciter order of termination and in view of<br \/>\nthe judgments discussed above, the petitioner would not be<br \/>\nentitled to any relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In case the respondents have incorrectly submitted<br \/>\nthat the number of persons have been reduced to under 500,<br \/>\nit, is always open to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take<br \/>\nappropriate action in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is<br \/>\ndismissed leaving it open to respondents 1 to 3 to proceed<br \/>\nin accordance with law against respondent No. 4 in case any<br \/>\nviolation of the Factories Act or the Factories Rule is<br \/>\nfound.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. Needless to say that the decision in the present<br \/>\ncase will not affect the right of the petitioner to avail of<br \/>\nany remedy before the Civil Court in accordance with law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital &#8230; on 24 January, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 475, 96 (2002) DLT 699, 2002 (93) FLR 625, 2003 (1) SLJ 54 Delhi Author: S K Kaul Bench: S K Kaul JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner was employed as a [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital ... on 24 January, 2002 - 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\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital ... on 24 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-13T18:17:05+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital &#8230; on 24 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-13T18:17:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1474,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002\",\"name\":\"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital ... on 24 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-13T18:17:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital &#8230; on 24 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital ... on 24 January, 2002 - 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\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital ... on 24 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-13T18:17:05+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital &#8230; on 24 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-13T18:17:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002"},"wordCount":1474,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002","name":"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital ... on 24 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-13T18:17:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kumar-bali-vs-government-of-national-capital-on-24-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arun Kumar Bali vs Government Of National Capital &#8230; on 24 January, 2002"}]},{"@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\/60402","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=60402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}