{"id":68434,"date":"2002-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002"},"modified":"2015-08-03T11:42:48","modified_gmt":"2015-08-03T06:12:48","slug":"shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 VIIAD Delhi 274, 99 (2002) DLT 631 b, 2002 (64) DRJ 479 b<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  S.B. Sinha, C.J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. This writ petition has been filed questioning a judgment<br \/>\nand order dated 02.02.1990 passed by the Central Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 90 of 1987. The<br \/>\npetitioner herein filed the said application purported to be on the<br \/>\nground that he was prevented from performing his duties and he<br \/>\nhad not been paid his wages. He further prayed that he should not<br \/>\nbe discharged from service without following the procedure laid<br \/>\ndown under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as &#8216;the Constitution&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Safaiwala as a<br \/>\ncasual labourer in the Carriage and Wagon Branch, New Delhi on<br \/>\n08.04.1985. He worked as a casual labourer only for 137 days up<br \/>\nto 31.07.1986. According to him, he had worked as casual labourer<br \/>\nfor a total number of 280 days. In support of which plea, he has<br \/>\nannexed a purported chart containing the names of 12 persons<br \/>\nwherein the petitioner&#8217;s name is at serial No. 10. However,<br \/>\nadmittedly on 01.01.1987, the respondents discharged all those<br \/>\npersons whose names appeared in the said chart and the said<br \/>\naction on the part of the respondents was the subject matter of the<br \/>\noriginal application before the learned Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. By reason of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal<br \/>\nheld that as the petitioner can file a representation, the same may<br \/>\nbe considered on its own merits. The said original application was<br \/>\ndisposed of directing:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230; The applicants will, however, be at liberty<br \/>\nto file a fresh application in accordance with law,<br \/>\nif so advised. We also direct that the<br \/>\nrespondents shall consider any representations<br \/>\nthat may be made by the applicants as regards<br \/>\ntheir claim for wages for the past period<br \/>\nexpeditiously. The applicants may file fresh<br \/>\napplication, if they are aggrieved by the decision<br \/>\ntaken by the respondents on their<br \/>\nrepresentations. The application is disposed of<br \/>\non the above lines.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4. It does not appear form the writ petition that pursuant<br \/>\nto and in furtherance thereof any representation was filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner herein, although the said original application was<br \/>\ndisposes of by the learned Tribunal on 02.02.1990 and this writ<br \/>\npetition has been filed on 22.02.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Mr. Malik B.D. Thareja and Mr. K.K. Puri, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the<br \/>\npetitioner was not aware of the proceedings before the learned<br \/>\nTribunal and had lost contact with his counsel and in that view of<br \/>\nthe matter, this Court should entertain this writ petition despite<br \/>\ndelay. In support the said contention, reliance has been placed on<br \/>\n <a href=\"\/doc\/1117226\/\">Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Katiji and Ors.<\/a> ;<br \/>\n <a href=\"\/doc\/852301\/\">State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors.<\/a> ; and  <a href=\"\/doc\/1463760\/\">State of Bihar and Ors.<br \/>\nv. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Anr.<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The petitioner herein has failed to show that the had a<br \/>\nright to be absorbed in the Railway service. Only because he has<br \/>\nallegedly completed a period of 240 days, the same by itself would<br \/>\nnot entitle him of regularization of his service.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. <a href=\"\/doc\/33580\/\">In  Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar<br \/>\nMishra and Ors.<\/a> , it was held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4. We are unable to uphold the order of the<br \/>\nHigh Court. There were no sanctioned posts in<br \/>\nexistence to which they could be said to have<br \/>\nbeen appointed. The assignment was an ad hoc<br \/>\none, which anticipatedly spent itself out. It is<br \/>\ndifficult to envisage for them, the status of<br \/>\nworkmen on the analogy of the provisions of<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, importing the<br \/>\nincidents of completion of 240 days work. The<br \/>\nlegal consequences that flow from work for that<br \/>\nduration under the Industrial Disputes Act,<br \/>\n1947 are entirely different form what, by way of<br \/>\nimplication, is attributed to the present situation<br \/>\nby way of analogy. The completion of 240 days&#8217;<br \/>\nwork does not, under that law import the right to<br \/>\nregularization. It merely imposes certain<br \/>\nobligations on the employer at the time of<br \/>\ntermination of the service. It is not appropriate<br \/>\nto import and apply that analogy, in an extended<br \/>\nor enlarged form here.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8. Apart form the said fact, a writ petition cannot be<br \/>\nentertained after a period of 12 years, the submissions, which have<br \/>\nbeen made in support of the application for condensation of delay, in<br \/>\nour opinion, cannot be believed.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. If the petitioner was interested in getting his services<br \/>\nregularized, he should have been in constant touch with his counsel<br \/>\nwho had appeared before the Tribunal. If he failed to do so, he<br \/>\nshould thank himself for the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The decision cited by the learned counsel in support of<br \/>\nthe contention that the writ petition should not be dismissed on the<br \/>\nground of delay and laches alone may now be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&#8217;s case (supra),<br \/>\nwas a case where the appeal by the State was barred by 4 days,<br \/>\nwherein the Apex Court held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4. When substantial justice and technical<br \/>\nconsiderations are petted against each other,<br \/>\ncause of substantial justice deserves to be<br \/>\npreferred for the other side cannot claim to have<br \/>\nvested right in injustice being done because of a<br \/>\nnon-deliberate delay.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>12. In  Chandra Mani&#8217;s case (Supra), the Apex Court held<br \/>\nthat ceratin amount of latitude within reasonable limits is<br \/>\npermissible in condoning the delay, particularly when the State is<br \/>\nthe appellant having regard to the impersonal bureaucratic set-up<br \/>\ninvolving red-tapism.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. In  Kameshwar Prasad Singh&#8217;s case (Supra), the Apex<br \/>\nCourt condoned the delay of 679 days in filing Special Leave Petition<br \/>\nupon having satisfied itself that sufficient cause has been shown by<br \/>\nthe petitioner, as he had been pursuing other remedies.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. The aforesaid decisions cannot be said to have any<br \/>\napplication in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. &#8220;Delay defeats equity&#8221; is a well-known concept. A<br \/>\nperson, who approaches a Court of equity must approach that<br \/>\nCourt within a reasonable period.\n<\/p>\n<p>16. In any event, the post in which the petitioner sought for<br \/>\nregularization of his services, it is unlikely to be still vacant despite<br \/>\nexpiry of the period of 12 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>17. <a href=\"\/doc\/1442497\/\">In  Ratan Chandra Sammanta &amp; Ors. v. Union of India and<br \/>\nOrs.<\/a>  it was held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;5. The representation does not give any<br \/>\ndetail. It is not mentioned if the scheme was<br \/>\ngiven due publicity or not. No explanation is<br \/>\ngiven as to why the petitioner did not approach<br \/>\ntill 1990. Nor it is stated if any of the casual<br \/>\nlabourer of the project were reemployed or not.<br \/>\nIt is vague and was lacking in material<br \/>\nparticulars.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Two questions arise, one, if the petitioners<br \/>\nare entitled as a matter of law for re-employment<br \/>\nand other if they have lost their right, if nay, due<br \/>\nto delay. Right of casual labourer employed in<br \/>\nprojects, to be re-employment in railways has been<br \/>\nrecognized both by the Railways and this Court.<br \/>\nBut unfortunately the petitioners did not take<br \/>\nany step to enforce their claim before the<br \/>\nRailways except sending a vague representation<br \/>\nnor did they even care to produce any material to<br \/>\nsatisfy this Court that they were covered in the<br \/>\nscheme framed by the Railways. It was urged by<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for petitioners that they may<br \/>\nbe permitted to produce their identity cards etc.,<br \/>\nbefore opposite parties who amy accept or reject<br \/>\nthe same after verification. We are afraid it<br \/>\nwould be too dangerous to permit this exercise.<br \/>\nA writ is issued by this Court in favor of a<br \/>\nperson who has some right. And not for sake of<br \/>\nroving enquiry leaving scope for manoeuvring.<br \/>\nDelay itself deprives a person of is remedy<br \/>\navailable in law. In absence of any fresh cause<br \/>\nof action or any legislation a person who has lost<br \/>\nhis remedy by lapse of time loses his right as<br \/>\nwell. From the date of retrenchment if it is<br \/>\nassumed to be correct a period of more than 15<br \/>\nyears has expired and in case we accept the<br \/>\nprayer of petitioner we would be depriving a host<br \/>\nof others who in the meantime have become<br \/>\neligible and are entitled to claim to be employed.<br \/>\nWe would have been persuaded to take a<br \/>\nsympathetic view but in absence of any positive<br \/>\nmaterial to establish that these petitioners were<br \/>\nin fact appointed and working as alleged by them<br \/>\nit would not be proper exercise of discretion to<br \/>\ndirect opposite parties to verify the correctness of<br \/>\nthe statement made by the petitioners that they<br \/>\nwere employed between 1964 to 1969 and<br \/>\nretrenched between 1975 to 1979.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>18. Yet again in  Narayan Singh Solanki v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 321, the Apex Court held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;We are not inclined to go into the merits of<br \/>\nthe matter as we are of the view that the<br \/>\nappellant having resigned form the service and<br \/>\naccepted his provident fund in the year 1963<br \/>\nand thereafter remained silent for nearly 28<br \/>\nyears, and therefore, demand for change in<br \/>\noption in the year 1992 did not deserve to be<br \/>\nentertained. In fact the appellant was guilty of<br \/>\nlaches and, therefore, not entitled to change his<br \/>\noption for pension. On this short question, we<br \/>\ndismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>19. Furthermore, in  <a href=\"\/doc\/278895\/\">Patel Motibhai Naranbhai and Anr. v.<br \/>\nDinubhai Motibhai Patel and Ors.<\/a> , it was held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;10. Faced with the situation that an<br \/>\napplication for filing the award in court under<br \/>\nSection 14(2) of the Arbitration Act has become<br \/>\nbarred by limitation, Jayantikumar Ishwarbhai<br \/>\nPatel induced the Arbitrator to make an<br \/>\napplication for filing of the award and also for<br \/>\nmaking the award the rule of the court. In other<br \/>\nwords, Jayantikumar Ishwarbhai Patel, a party<br \/>\nto the dispute, with the help of the Arbitrator,<br \/>\ndid indirectly what he could not have done<br \/>\ndirectly. We are of the view that law cannot be<br \/>\nallowed to be circumvented in this fashion. The<br \/>\ncourt should have declined to entertain the<br \/>\napplication moved by the Arbitrator nearly six<br \/>\nyears after making of the award. Without six<br \/>\napplication of the Arbitrator, the application<br \/>\nmade by Jayantikumar Ishwarbhai Patel under<br \/>\nSection 14(2) could not survive. The court<br \/>\nshould not come to the aid of a party where<br \/>\nthere has been unwarrantable delay in seeking<br \/>\nthe statutory remedy. Any remedy must be<br \/>\nsought with reasonable promptitude having<br \/>\nregard to the circumstances.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>20. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any<br \/>\nreason to interfere with the said order. This writ petition is<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 VIIAD Delhi 274, 99 (2002) DLT 631 b, 2002 (64) DRJ 479 b Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed questioning a judgment and [&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-68434","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>Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 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\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-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=\"2002-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-03T06:12:48+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T06:12:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1751,\"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\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T06:12:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 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":"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 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\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-03T06:12:48+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T06:12:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002"},"wordCount":1751,"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\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002","name":"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T06:12:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-18-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shyam Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 April, 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\/68434","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=68434"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68434\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}