{"id":70814,"date":"2008-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-14T11:28:47","modified_gmt":"2016-10-14T05:58:47","slug":"district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"District Programme Co-Ordinator &#8230; vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">District Programme Co-Ordinator &#8230; vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n<pre>                                                         1\n\n\n                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5815 OF 2008\n                           (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17820\/2006)\n\n\nDISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, MAHILA                         ...    APPELLANT(S)\nSAMKHYA AND ANR.\n\n                                         :VERSUS:\n\nABDUL KAREEM AND ANR.                                           ...    RESPONDENT(S)\n\n\n                                         ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>             Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Mahila Samkhya, Karnataka, is a society registered under the Karnataka<\/p>\n<p>    Societies Registration Act, 1960.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>             This society is engaged in various activities, like encouraging, assisting,<\/p>\n<p>    promoting, decision making and encouraging group action by women as means of<\/p>\n<p>    their empowerment and equal participation in the process to bring about social<\/p>\n<p>    changes and to empower the women. The activities of the said society is being carried<\/p>\n<p>    out in the districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Bijapur, Bellary, Koppal and Mysore<\/p>\n<p>    in the State of Karnataka. It has been receiving funds from the Government of<\/p>\n<p>    Netherlands for the aforementioned activities.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         The services of respondent No.1 herein as a driver were hired by the<\/p>\n<p>appellants. He was initially appointed in the year 1992 on fixed tenure basis. On or<\/p>\n<p>about 20th October, 1997, his services were again hired inter alia for the period<\/p>\n<p>1.11.1997 to 31.10.1999. Appellants were, however, entitled to terminate his services<\/p>\n<p>with 30 days notice on either side or by payment of compensation of one month&#8217;s<\/p>\n<p>honorarium in lieu of notice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         It is now not much in dispute that some acts of omission and commission on<\/p>\n<p>the part of the 1st respondent were brought to the notice of the authorities of the<\/p>\n<p>Society and some purported oral enquiry was conducted at Bangalore in connection<\/p>\n<p>with some vehicle bearing No. KA-39 M-42.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         By reason of a letter dated 3rd July, 1998, however, the services of respondent<\/p>\n<p>No.1 were terminated in terms of para 14 of the offer of appointment, stating:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        &#8220;Vide the above referred letter, you were appointed as a driver in<br \/>\n        MSK, Gulbarga as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein.<br \/>\n        In accordance with para XIV of your appointment letter, your<br \/>\n        services are no longer required in this organization and hence your<br \/>\n        services are terminated with immediate effect, i.e. with effect from<br \/>\n        3.7.98 with one month notice in lieu of which you are being paid one<br \/>\n        month&#8217;s honorarium.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>         An industrial dispute was raised by the 1st respondent before the Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court at Gulbarga. Both the parties adduced their respective evidences before the<\/p>\n<p>Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Having regard to the deposition of Ms. Jyothi<\/p>\n<p>Kulkarni examined on behalf of the appellants as NW-1, the Labour Court opined:<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        &#8220;The main contention of the 2nd party is that the termination of the<br \/>\n        workman 1st party was only a termination simplicitor and the same<br \/>\n        cannot be disturbed by the Court. In this case the 2nd party has<br \/>\n        produced the letter dt. 3.7.98. Of course the said letter shows that<br \/>\n        the appointment was only temporary in nature. This statement as<br \/>\n        reflected in the letter cannot be accepted. In fact the 1st party has<br \/>\n        produced before the court the letter issued by the establishment.<br \/>\n        The said letter issued by the officials of the 2nd party marked as W1<br \/>\n        clearly indicates that the service of 1st party was terminated not on<br \/>\n        account of temporary work but it was due to the fact that the same<br \/>\n        was not proper.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>         Holding that as no disciplinary enquiry was conducted, the termination<\/p>\n<p>order dated 3.7.1998 was illegal, an award of reinstatement in service with full back<\/p>\n<p>wages was made. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award the appellants<\/p>\n<p>filed writ petition in the High Court. The High Court while upholding the award of<\/p>\n<p>reinstatement in service reduced the back-wages to 30 per cent.<\/p>\n<p>         Appellants are, thus, before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Labour<\/p>\n<p>Court and consequently the High committed a serious illegality in passing the<\/p>\n<p>impugned award and the judgment, in so far as they failed to take into consideration<\/p>\n<p>that the order of termination did not attract the provisions contained in Chapter VA<\/p>\n<p>of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as the termination of services of the 1st<\/p>\n<p>respondent came within the purview of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial<\/p>\n<p>Disputes Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>other hand, would urge that from the letter dated 6th August, 1997 issued by the<\/p>\n<p>Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, Government of<\/p>\n<p>India, it would appear that the Project during the 9th Plan period was to continue<\/p>\n<p>from 1997-98 to 2001-2002 and in that view of he matter, the services of the 1st<\/p>\n<p>respondent should not have been terminated before the Project came to an end.<\/p>\n<p>         From the deposition of Ms. Jyothi Kulkarni herself, the learned counsel<\/p>\n<p>submitted, it is abundantly clear that the services of the 1st respondent were<\/p>\n<p>terminated by way of punishment in lieu of dismissal from service as his behaviour<\/p>\n<p>was not proper and, thus, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction<\/p>\n<p>under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-<br \/>\n        renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and<br \/>\n        the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being<br \/>\n        terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>         It is not a case where the termination of the services of the 1st respondent<\/p>\n<p>emanated from non-renewal of contract of employment. Under the general law, the<\/p>\n<p>appellants might have been entitled to take recourse to clause XIV of the offer of<\/p>\n<p>appointment dated 20.10.1997, but in view of the fact that the terms and conditions of<\/p>\n<p>services of the 1st respondent were governed by the provisions of the Industrial<\/p>\n<p>Disputes Act, the order of termination must satisfy the requirements thereof.<\/p>\n<p>         We may place on record that although a contention has been raised both<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>before the Labour Court as also the High Court that the society does not satisfy the<\/p>\n<p>test of an &#8216;industry&#8217; as contained in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Nath did not raise any such contention before us.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         A finding has been arrived at by the Labour Court that the termination of<\/p>\n<p>the services of the 1st respondent, relying on or on the basis of clause XIV of the offer<\/p>\n<p>of appointment, is a camouflage and the said finding has been affirmed by the High<\/p>\n<p>Court. We are not inclined to interfere therewith, being a finding of fact.<\/p>\n<p>         It is, however, not a case where an award of reinstatement could be made.<\/p>\n<p>The Society runs the project. The project came to an end in 1999. The plea that the<\/p>\n<p>tenure of the project was extended by the Government of India was not put to the<\/p>\n<p>Management. Such a plea cannot be raised for the first time before us.<\/p>\n<p>         We, therefore, are of the opinion that as the services of the 1st respondent<\/p>\n<p>could be terminated on or about 31.10.1999, i.e. at the end of the tenure of the project,<\/p>\n<p>interest of justice will be subserved if in stead and place of upholding the award of<\/p>\n<p>reinstatement in service, we direct the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 56,000\/- to the 1st<\/p>\n<p>respondent by way of compensation which would cover the amount of honorarium to<\/p>\n<p>which he would have been entitled to for the period July, 1998 to October, 1999. We<\/p>\n<p>direct accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         The said payment shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date<\/p>\n<p>of communication of this order, failing which the same shall bear interest at the rate<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of 12 per cent per annum.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The appeal is allowed in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J<br \/>\n                                             (S.B. SINHA)<\/p>\n<p>                                              &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J<br \/>\n                                             (CYRIAC JOSEPH)<\/p>\n<p>NEW DELHI,<br \/>\nSEPTEMBER 18, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India District Programme Co-Ordinator &#8230; vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008 Bench: S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5815 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17820\/2006) DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, MAHILA &#8230; APPELLANT(S) SAMKHYA AND ANR. :VERSUS: ABDUL [&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-70814","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>District Programme Co-Ordinator ... vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008 - 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\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"District Programme Co-Ordinator ... vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-14T05:58:47+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"District Programme Co-Ordinator &#8230; vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-14T05:58:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1254,\"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\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008\",\"name\":\"District Programme Co-Ordinator ... vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-14T05:58:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"District Programme Co-Ordinator &#8230; vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"District Programme Co-Ordinator ... vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008 - 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\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"District Programme Co-Ordinator ... vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-14T05:58:47+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"District Programme Co-Ordinator &#8230; vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-14T05:58:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008"},"wordCount":1254,"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\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008","name":"District Programme Co-Ordinator ... vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-14T05:58:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-programme-co-ordinator-vs-abdul-kareem-anr-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"District Programme Co-Ordinator &#8230; vs Abdul Kareem &amp; Anr on 18 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/70814","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=70814"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70814\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70814"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70814"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70814"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}