{"id":71659,"date":"2003-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003"},"modified":"2014-06-14T21:53:21","modified_gmt":"2014-06-14T16:23:21","slug":"v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 21\/02\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN\n\nW.P. NO. 6485 OF 2001\n\nV.Subramaniam                          .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Central Bank of India\nrep. By its Managing Director\nPlot No.C-6, Block E, V Floor\nBandra Kurla Complex\nBandra (E)\nMUMBAI 400 051.                         .. Respondent\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India  praying\nthis Court to issue a Writ of Declaration as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.  S.Ayyathurai\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.  Karthik, for\n                M\/s.T.S.  Gopalan & Co.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
1.   The writ petitioner, a retired officer of the respondent Bank, has prayed
\nfor the issue of a writ of  declaration  declaring  Regulation  No.22  of  The
\nCentral  Bank  of  India  Employees Pension Regulation, 1995, is null and void
\ninsofar  as  it  disentitles  the  employees  who  resigned  to  pension  and,
\nconsequently direct the respondent to pay pension to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Heard  Mr.S.Ayyathurai,  learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
\nMr.Karthik, learned counsel appearing  for  M\/s.T.S.Gopalan  &  Co.,  for  the
\nrespondents.   With  the consent of either side, the writ petition is taken up
\nfor final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The facts leading to the  present  writ  petition  has  to  be  summarised
\nbriefly for   considering   the  contentions  advanced  by  petitioner.    The
\npetitioner, who joined the respondent Bank as a clerk on 3.9.56, in course  of
\ntime earned  promotion  to  the  cadre  of  officer.    In September 1986, the
\npetitioner submitted his resignation in accordance with the  Central  Bank  of
\nIndia  (Officers)  Service Regulations, 1979, and the same was accepted by the
\nrespondent.  On completion of 30 years of continuous service,  the  petitioner
\nvoluntarily retired  from  service.    On  retirement,  all  terminal benefits
\npayable as per the existing rules, it is admitted has been paid  and  received
\nby the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  respondent  framed  the  Central  Bank  of  India (Employee) Pension
\nRegulations, 1995, for its employees.    Regulation  3  of  the  said  Pension
\nRegulation  will  cover  all  employees, who were in service of the Bank on or
\nafter the first day of January, 1986.  The petitioner claims that  he  was  in
\nservice  till  September, 1986 and, therefore, he is entitled to claim pension
\nunder the Regulations.  The petitioner’s request for pension was  turned  down
\nas the petitioner has resigned and in that view, the request of the petitioner
\nfor payment  of  pension under the regulation has been turned down.  According
\nto the petitioner, the resignation would only mean voluntary retirement.   The
\napplication  submitted  on  11.9.2000  claiming  pension was rejected by order
\ndated 30.9.2000 stating that the petitioner will not be entitled to pension as
\nhis case do not fall under any of the categories.\n<\/p>\n
5.  According to the petitioner,  Regulation  22  of  the  pension  regulation
\ninsofar as it denies pension for those who resigned is arbitrary, unreasonable
\nand   unfair  and,  therefore,  violative  of  Article  14  and  2  1  of  The
\nConstitution.  The equation  of  resignation  with  dismissal  or  removal  or
\ntermination  of the service of an employee to disentitle a resignee is unfair,
\nunreasonable and arbitrary.  There is no provision relating to resignation and
\nRegulation 19 of the rules only speaks of voluntary  retirement.    Therefore,
\naccording  to  the petitioner, his resignation is a voluntary retirement and a
\ndirection should be issued consequentially to settle the pension payable under
\nthe rules.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The respondent filed a counter opposing the claim,  besides  pointing  out
\nthat  since the petitioner has left the Bank 25 years since, a quarter century
\nbefore, no records are available.  The Central Bank of India was  nationalised
\nby the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.
\nBy virtue of powers conferred under Section 19 read with Section 12 (2) of the
\nsaid  enactment,  the  Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and
\nwith  the  previous  approval  of  the  Central  Government   framed   service
\nregulations  in  respect  of  officers,  which  came  into  force  on  1.7.79.
\nRegulation 19 prescribes the age of retirement.  Regulation  19.7  deals  with
\nvoluntary  retirement  of  officers before reaching the age of superannuation.
\nIn terms of Regulation 19.7 (a), an  officer  employee  of  the  Bank  may  be
\npermitted  to  retire  voluntarily  from service at any time, if he or she has
\ncompleted 30 years of service as an officer or has  attained  the  age  of  55
\nyears, whichever  is  earlier, by giving three months notice in writing.  Such
\nan officer under  Regulation  19.7  (e)  shall  be  entitled  to  benefits  as
\napplicable  under  normal  retirement in accordance with the provisions of The
\nCentral Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  Central  Bank  of  India  Employees  Pension  Regulations,  1995,  (
\nhereinafter  referred to as pension regulations) was framed by virtue of power
\nconferred under Section 19 (2) (f) of The Banking Companies ( Acquisition  and
\nTransfer of  Undertakings)  Act, 1970.  Regulation 3 applies to employees, who
\nwere in service on or after the 1st January, 1 986,  but  retired  before  1st
\nNovember, 1993.  According to the respondent, the officer-employee, who was in
\nservice  after  1st  January,  1986 but retired before 1st November 1993 alone
\ncould exercise the option for drawing pension,  provided  such  an  option  is
\nexpressed  within  the time stipulated and refunds the amount received towards
\nbanks contribution.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The petitioner was born on 15.12.1934 and joined the services of the  bank
\non 3.9.56 as a clerk.  Long time after that he was promoted as an officer from
\nwhich post  he  resigned  in  June  1986  and  he was relieved on 3.9.86.  His
\nterminal benefits were paid as the petitioner’s resignation took place  nearly
\n24 years  back.   No papers pertaining to the petitioner are traceable so that
\nthe bank could set out full particulars.\n<\/p>\n
9.  It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner has not put in 30 years
\nof service as an officer nor he had attained the age of 55 years at  the  time
\nwhen his  resignation  was  accepted  in  1986.  The cessation of petitioner’s
\nemployment was not by way of voluntary retirement under Regulation 19  of  The
\nCentral Bank  of  India  (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979.  Further without
\nprejudice  it  is  submitted  that  the  petitioner  had  not  approached  the
\nrespondent  Bank  and  expressed  his option for drawing pension in accordance
\nwith the regulations.  The petitioner has failed to approach the  Bank  within
\n120  days  nor  he  has  refunded  the  amount  of  the Bank’s contribution of
\nprovident fund with interest.  Therefore, the  claim  of  the  petitioner  for
\npayment of  pension is without merits.  The petitioner has approached the Bank
\nbelatedly and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed  on  the  ground  of
\ndelay and  laches.    The  various  contentions advanced by the petitioner are
\ndevoid of merits.  The contention that Regulation 22 is unconstitutional  also
\ncannot be  countenanced.   The petitioner, who resigned in terms of Regulation
\n22 of the pension regulations forfeiting his past service and,  therefore,  he
\nis not  qualified  for  pension.  The petitioner is not entitled to any relief
\nprayed for in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Mr.Ayyathurai,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  contended   that
\nRegulation 22 of The Central Bank of India Employees Pension Regulation has to
\nbe  declared  as  unconstitutional  and,  consequently,  a direction has to be
\nissued to the respondent-bank to pay pension for the services rendered by  the
\npetitioner.   Per  contra it is contended that the question whether Regulation
\n29 is unconstitutional or not  will  not  arise  and  assuming  so  also,  the
\npetitioner  will  not  be  entitled  to  pension  as on facts, in terms of the
\npension regulations, the petitioner will not be entitled to  pension  at  all.
\nMr.Karthick,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  while  referring to the
\nregulations contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.\n<\/p>\n
11.  The points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are :-
\n“i) Whether Regulation 22 (1) of  The  Central  Bank  of  India  (  Employees)
\nPension Regulations, 1995, is liable to be declared as unconstitutional ?\n<\/p>\n
ii)  Whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction for payment of pension
\nby the respondent Bank on the facts of the case ?”\n<\/p>\n
12.  To consider both the questions, it is essential to refer to some  of  the
\nprovisions  of  the  Pension Regulations, 1995, which regulation is statutory.
\nRegulation 2 (y) defines the expression “retirement”.   The  definition  reads
\nthus :-\n<\/p>\n
“2(y)”Retirement” means cessation from Bank’s service, –\n<\/p>\n
(a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or
\nSettlements;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  on  voluntary  retirement  in  accordance  with  provisions  contained in
\nregulation 29 of these regulations;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  on  premature  retirement  by  the  Bank  before  attaining  the  age  of
\nsuperannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlement.”\n<\/p>\n
13.  Regulation 2 (x) defines the expression “retired”, which includes “deemed
\nto have  retired”  in  clause  “l”.    Regulation 2 (l) defines the expression
\n“deemed to have retired” and it reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“Deemed to  have  retired”  means  cessation  from  service  of  the  Bank  on
\nappointment  by  Central  Government  as  a  whole-time  Director  of Managing
\nDirector or Chairman in the Bank or in any other Bank specified in column 2 of
\nthe FIRST SCHEDULE of the Act or Banking Companies ( Acquisition and  Transfer
\nof  Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) or in any public financial institution
\nor State Bank of India established under State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23  of
\n1955).”\n<\/p>\n
14.  Regulation 3 (1), which is relevant for the present case, reads thus :-
\n“Application :  These regulations shall apply to employees who –
\n(1)  (a)  were  in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January,
\n1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993; and\n<\/p>\n
(b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from  the
\nnotified date to become member of the Fund; and\n<\/p>\n
(c)  refund  within  sixty  days  after  the  expiry of the said period of one
\nhundred and twenty days specified in clause  (b)  the  entire  amount  of  the
\nBank’s  contribution  to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon
\ntogether with a further simple interest at the rate of six percent  per  annum
\non  the  said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account
\ntill the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank.”\n<\/p>\n
15.  Chapter IV of the Regulation  prescribes  the  qualifying  service.    In
\nChapter IV, Regulation 22 provides for forfeiture of service, which reads thus
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
“Qualifying  Service  –  Subject  to  the  other conditions contained in these
\nregulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in
\nthe Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he  is  deemed  to
\nhave retired shall qualify for pension.”\n<\/p>\n
The  remaining  portion of this regulations is not relevant for the purpose of
\nthe present case.  This is the provision, which is sought to be challenged  as
\nunconstitutional or violative of Article 14 & 21.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Regulation  29  provides  for  payment  of  pension in case of voluntary
\nretirement on or after the 1st day of November 1993 and at any time  after  an
\nemployee has completed 20 years of qualifying service.  The individual officer
\nmay  by  giving  notice  of  not  less  than  three  months  in writing to the
\nappointing authority retire from service.  Such a notice has to be accepted by
\nthe appointing authority.  Thus Regulation 29 will not cover the case  of  the
\npetitioner  as  according to him he has resigned during the year 1986 and long
\nprior to commencement of the regulation.\n<\/p>\n
17.  Regulation 32 provides for premature retirement pension and Regulation 33
\nprovides for compulsory  retirement  pension.    While  referring  to  Service
\nRegulation  19.7  of  the Officers Service Rules, it is being pointed out that
\nthe petitioner could not have been allowed to retire voluntarily in  terms  of
\nRegulation  19  as  on  the  date of retirement, the petitioner could not have
\nsatisfied with Service Regulation 19.7, which reads thus :-
\n“19.7 (a) An officer of the Bank may be permitted to retire  voluntarily  from
\nthe  service  of  the  Bank  at  any time if he\/she has completed 3 0 years of
\nservice as an officer or has attained the age of 55 years,  whichever  happens
\nearlier, after giving the Bank 3 months’ notice in writing.”\n<\/p>\n
18.  Admittedly the petitioner did not held the post of officer for  30  years
\nnor  he  has attained the age of 55 years on the date of his leaving the bank.
\nTherefore, the petitioner could not have been permitted to retire  voluntarily
\nin terms  of  Regulation  19  of  the  service rules.  Mr.Karthik, the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondent, is well founded in  his  contention  and
\nthis  factual  and  legal  position  is  fatal  to the claim of pension by the
\npetitioner.  In case of retirement of officers under proviso to sub-regulation
\n(1) of Regulation 19 , an officer is entitled for payment  of  pension.    The
\npetitioner  has  not  retired  voluntarily  in  terms  of Regulation 19 of The
\nOfficer’s Service Rules.\n<\/p>\n
19.  “Retirement” means either on  attaining  the  age  of  superannuation  or
\nvoluntary  retirement  in  accordance  with  provision  to  Regulation  29  or
\npremature retirement by the  Bank  on  attaining  the  age  of  superannuation
\nspecified in the service rules.  Admittedly, the petitioner’s case do not fall
\nunder either  the  first contingency or the 3rd contingency.  If at all he may
\nclaim under the 2nd contingency,  namely,  voluntary  retirement.    But  such
\nvoluntary retirement should be in accordance with Regulation 29.\n<\/p>\n
20.   Regulation  29  (1)  also  will  not cover the case of the petitioner as
\nRegulation 29 would apply to a case where an employee on and after the 1st day
\nof November 1993 and at any time after thereof, on completion of 20  years  of
\nqualifying  service, may retire by giving notice of not less than three months
\nin writing to the appointing authority.  This is not the case and it is not as
\nif the petitioner has retired on and after the 1st November, 1993.  Therefore,
\nRegulation 29 will have no application to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
21.  The petitioner also cannot take advantage of the definition clause 2  (l)
\n“deemed to have retired”, as it is not as if the cessation from service of the
\nbank  on  appointment  to  Central  Government  or as a whole-time Director or
\nManaging Director or Chairman in the Bank  or  any  other  Bank  specified  in
\nColumn  2  of  the  first  schedule  of  the  Act  or  in any public financial
\ninstitution or State Bank of India established under The State Bank  of  India
\nAct, 1955.    Thus on a conceptuous consideration of the Central Bank of India
\nEmployees Pension Regulations, 1995, the petitioner’s  claim  for  payment  of
\npension cannot  be  countenanced  and it has to be rejected.  Accordingly, the
\n2nd point is answered against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
22.  Taking up  the  first  contention,  challenge  to  Regulation  22,  which
\nprovides  pension  in  case  of  resignation  before  1.11.1993 and in case of
\ndismissal or removal or termination of an employee from service  of  the  Bank
\nthe  individual  officer  will  result  in  forfeiture of pensionary benefits.
\nAccording  to  Mr.Ayyathurai,  learned  counsel  for   the   petitioner,   the
\nresignation  or  dismissal  or removal or termination are sought to be treated
\nequally and this is arbitrary, besides it is violative of Article 14 and 21.\n<\/p>\n
23.  In this  respect,  Mr.Ayyathurai,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner
\nreferred to  the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in J.K.  COTTON SPINNING &
\nWEAVING MILLS VS.  STATE OF U.P.  & OTHERS reported in AIR 19 90 SC 1808.   In
\nthe  said pronouncement, the Apex Court, while construing Section 2 (s) of The
\nU.P.  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,  held  that  termination  of  service  by
\nemployer by accepting resignation does not amount to retrenchment and the same
\nshall  be  covered  by  voluntary  retirement  under Section 2 (s) of The U.P.
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 19 47.  In that context, the Apex Court held thus :-
\n“8.   In  the  present  case the employee’s request contained in the letter of
\nresignation was accepted by the employer  and  that  brought  an  end  to  the
\ncontract of  service.    The  meaning of term ‘resign’ as found in the Shorter
\nOxford Dictionary  includes  ‘retirement’.    Therefore,  when   an   employee
\nvoluntarily tenders his resignation it is an act by which he voluntarily gives
\nup his  job.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that such a situation would be
\ncovered by the expression ‘ voluntary retirement’ within the meaning of Cl.(i)
\nof Sec.2(s) of the State Act.  In Santosh Gupta’s case  (AIR  1980  SC  1219),
\nChinnappa Reddy, J.  observed as under (at p.  1220 of AIR):
\n“Voluntary  retrenchment  of  a  workman or the retrenchment of the workman on
\nreaching the age of superannuation can hardly be described as termination,  by
\nthe employer, of the service of a workman.”\n<\/p>\n
(Here the word ‘retrenchment’ has reference to ‘retirement’.)
\nThe above observation clearly supports the view which commends to us.  We are,
\ntherefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in concluding that
\nbecause  the  employer  accepted the resignation offer voluntarily made by the
\nemployee, he terminated the service of  the  employee  and  such  termination,
\ntherefore,  fell  within the expression ‘retrenchment’ rendering him liable to
\ncompensate the employee under S.6N.  We are also of the view that this  was  a
\ncase  of  ‘voluntary  retirement’ within the meaning of the first exception to
\nSec.2(s) and therefore the question of grant of compensation under  S.6N  does
\nnot arise.  We therefore, cannot allow the view of the High Court to stand.”\n<\/p>\n
24.  The above pronouncement will not advance the case of  the  petitioner  as
\nthe  Apex Court had occasion to consider what is the meaning of the expression
\n“resignation” and effect of such  resignation  and  held  that  acceptance  of
\nresignation  offered  voluntarily  is  not retrenchment and no compensation is
\npayable under Section 6-L by the employer.\n<\/p>\n
25.  The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the  pronouncement  in
\nCECIL DENNIS  SOLOMON  & ANOTHER VS.  RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANOTHER reported
\nin 2002 (3) LLJ 115 in support of his contention that resignation from service
\nis not equivalent to dismissal or termination, both of which are the  acts  of
\nmanagement, but  resignation  is  more  akin  to  voluntary  retirement.  This
\npronouncement also will not support the petitioner’s contention or claim.\n<\/p>\n
26.  It is admitted that on the date when the petitioner entered  the  service
\nof  the  respondent  Bank as well as on the date when the petitioner resigned,
\nthere was no provision at all for payment of pension nor there was any  scheme
\nand  for  the  first time, the scheme was introduced in the Pension Rules long
\nafter the retirement of the petitioner from the service of the Bank.  As  such
\nnone  of the vested rights of the petitioner had been taken away by any of the
\nprovisions under the Pension Rules, which came into force on 1.7.79.\n<\/p>\n
27.  In TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS.  R.  VEERASAMY reported in  1999  (3)
\nSCC  414, where their Lordships of the Apex Court had occasion to consider the
\ncontention whether prospective introduction of pension scheme  with  reference
\nto  a cut off date is valid or violative of Articles 14 and 16 or based upon a
\nclassification or  based  on  intelligible  differentia  like  cut  off  date?
\nVenkatasami, J., (as he then was), after analysing the case law, held thus :-
\n“8.  As noticed earlier, the law is very well settled on the  issue  on  hand.
\nIn the  latest  judgment  dated  9.10.1998  of  this  Court  in V.  Kasturi v.
\nManaging Director,  State  Bank  of  India,  Bombay<\/a>  after  noticing  all  the
\njudgments of this Court up to that date on this issue, it was held as follows:
\n“23.   However,  if  an employee at the time of his retirement is not eligible
\nfor  earning  pension  and  stands  outside  the  class  of   pensioners,   if
\nsubsequently  by  amendment  of  the  relevant  pension  rules  any beneficial
\numbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners  and
\nwhen  such  a  subsequent scheme comes into force, the erstwhile non-pensioner
\nmight have survived,  then  only  if  such  extension  of  pension  scheme  to
\nerstwhile  non-pensioners  is  expressly made retrospective by the authorities
\npromulgating such scheme; the erstwhile non-pensioner who has retired prior to
\nthe advent of such extended pension scheme can claim benefit  of  such  a  new
\nextended pension scheme.  If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees
\nnonpensioners  cannot  get  the  benefit of such a scheme even if they survive
\nsuch new scheme.  They will remain outside its sweep.  The decisions  of  this
\nCourt covering  such second category of cases are:  Commander, Head Quarter v.
\nCap.  Biplabendra Chanda and Govt.  of T.N.<\/a>  v.  K.   Jayaraman  to  which  we
\nhave made  a  reference  earlier.    If  the  claimant  for  pension  benefits
\nsatisfactorily brings his case within the first category of cases, he would be
\nentitled to get the additional benefits of  pension  computation  even  if  he
\nmight  have  retired  prior  to  the enforcement of such additional beneficial
\nprovisions.  But if on the other hand, the case of a retired employee falls in
\nthe second category, the fact that he retired prior to the  relevant  date  of
\nthe  coming into operation of the new scheme would disentitle him from getting
\nsuch a new benefit.”\n<\/p>\n
* * * *\n<\/p>\n
11.  On 17.11.1998, a three Judge Bench in All  India  PNB  Retired  Officers’
\nAssn.  v.    Union  of  India<\/a>  while  negativing  an  identical claim, held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“This writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court  in  All
\nIndia Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Assn.  v.  Union of India.  That<\/a> judgment
\nhas  rightly  noted the distinction that Nakara case drew between a continuing
\nscheme and a new scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
12.  In view of the fact that this Court,  as  seen  above,  has  consistently
\ntaken  a  view,  we  do  not  want  to  multiply  the authorities for the same
\nproposition except to note down the undisputed facts relating to these cases.”
\nFollowing the said pronouncement, this Court also holds that the cut off date,
\nin the present case, is neither  violative  of  Article  14  nor  Article  16.
\nTherefore, the contention advanced in this respect cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
28.  In STATE OF W.B.  VS.  RATAN BEHARI DEY & ORS., reported in 1993 (4 ) SCC
\n62, the Apex Court held that an employer has the undoubted power to revise the
\nsalaries  and\/or  pay  scales  and  so  also the terminal benefits, pensionary
\nbenefits and it has the power to specify the date from which revision  of  pay
\nor  pensionary  benefits,  as  the  case may be, shall take effect, as it is a
\nconcomitant of the said power and when  there  is  no  discrimination  between
\nsimilarly  placed  persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that
\nbehalf.  This pronouncement squarely applies.\n<\/p>\n
29.  While following the pronouncement  in  ALL  INDIA  RESERVE  BANK  RETIRED
\nOFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS.  UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER (1992 Supp.  (1)
\nSCC 664),  in  SUBRATA  SEN  VS.  UNION OF INDIA reported in 20 01 (8) SCC 71,
\nM.B.Shah, J., reiterated the law laid down by Ahamadi J.\n<\/p>\n
30.  In ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS  ASSOCIATION  AND  OTHERS  VS.
\nUNION OF  INDIA & ANOTHER reported in 1992 Supp.  (1) SCC 664, while examining
\nthe scope of Reserve Bank of India Officers Regulations, which was  challenged
\nas violative of Article 14, and in particular the cut off date, the Apex Court
\nheld thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“Whenever  any  rule  or  regulation  having  statutory  flavour is made by an
\nauthority which is a State within the meaning of Art.21,  the  choice  of  the
\ncut-off  date  which  has  necessarily  to  be  introduced  to effectuate such
\nbenefits such benefits is open to scrutiny by the Court and must be  supported
\non the  touchstone  of  Art.14.    If  the  choice  of  the  date  results  in
\nclassification or division of members of a homogeneous group it would be  open
\nto the Court to insist that it be shown that the classification is based on an
\nintelligible  differentia and on rational consideration which bears a nexus to
\nthe purpose and object thereof.  The differential treatment accorded to  those
\nwho  retired  prior  to  the  specified  date and those who retired subsequent
\nthereto must be justified on the touchstone of Art.14, for otherwise it  would
\nbe offensive to the philosophy of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
\nHowever,  a  distinction  has  to  be drawn between continuance of an existing
\nscheme in its liberalised form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the
\ncase of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform  basis
\nand  any  division  which  classified  them  into  two groups by introducing a
\ncut-off date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality  in  treatment
\nunless  there  is a strong rationale discernible for so doing and the same can
\nbe supported on the ground that it will  subserve  the  object  sought  to  be
\nachieved.   But  in  the  case of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired
\nemployees have no vested right, the employer can restrict the same to  certain
\nclass  of retirees, having regard to the fact-situation in which it came to be
\nintroduced, the extent of additional financial burden that it will throw,  the
\ncapacity  of  the  employer to bear the same, the feasibility of extending the
\nscheme to all retirees regardless  of  the  dates  of  their  retirement,  the
\navailability of  records  of  every  retiree, etc.  In the case of an employee
\ngoverned by the CPF scheme his relations with the employer come to an  end  on
\nhis  retirement  and  receipt of the CPF amount but in the case of an employee
\ngoverned under the pension scheme  his  relations  with  the  employer  merely
\nundergo a  change  but  do  not  snap  altogether.  That is the reason why the
\nSupreme Court in Nakara case drew a distinction between liberalisation  of  an
\nexisting benefit  and  introduction  of  a totally new scheme.  in the case of
\npensioners  it  is  necessary  to  revise  the  pension  periodically  as  the
\ncontinuous  fall  in  the  rupee  value  and  the  rise in prices of essential
\ncommodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount but that  is  not
\nthe  case  of employees governed under the CPF scheme, since they had received
\nthe lump sum payment which they were at liberty to invest  in  a  manner  that
\nwould yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trends.
\nThe scheme  introduced by the Regulations is a totally new one.  It was not in
\nexistence prior to its introduction with effect from November 1,  1990.    The
\nemployees  of  the  Reserve  Bank  who  had  retired  prior  to that date were
\nadmittedly governed by the CPF scheme.   They  had  received  the  benefit  of
\nemployer’s  contribution under that scheme and on superannuation the amount to
\ntheir account was disbursed to them and they had put it to use  also.    There
\ncan, therefore, be no doubt that the retiral benefits admissible to them under
\nthe extant  Rules  of  the  Bank  had  been paid to them.  That was the social
\nsecurity plan available to them at the date of their retirement.    Therefore,
\nif  the  CPF retirees were not admitted to this new scheme they could not make
\nany grievance in that behalf.  They had no right to claim coverage  under  the
\nnew  pension  scheme  since  they  had already retired and had collected their
\nretiral benefits from the employer.” (Emphasis Supplied)<\/p>\n
31.  In  B.S.YADAV  VS.   CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA reported in 1987 (3) SCC 1 20,
\nthe Apex Court sustained the validity of classification of employees into  two
\ncategories and  held that they are not violative of Article 14 or 16.  In that
\ncontext, the Apex Court held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“16.  We  have  given  detailed  reasons  in  our  judgment  in  LIC  v.  S.S.
\nSrivastava decided cm May 5, 1987 justifying the existence of  a  rule  fixing
\ndifferent  ages  of  retirement  to different classes of employees of the Life
\nInsurance Corporation of India in  the  circumstances  existing  there.    The
\ncircumstances prevailing  in this case are almost the same.  Those reasons are
\nequally applicable to the present case too.  In Govindarajulu v.    Management
\nof  the  Union  Bank  of  India decided on November 21, 1986 the High Court of
\nMadras has rejected the contentions similar to those which are  raised  before
\nus.   In  that  case  a regulation framed by the Union Bank of India which was
\nsimilar to the one in this case was upheld.  That decision has  been  approved
\nby us in LIC v.    S.S.  Srivastava.  In Dr Nikhil Bhusan Chandra v.  Union of
\nIndia similar regulations framed by the United Commercial Bank which was  also
\nnationalised under the Act came up for ‘consideration before the High Court of
\nCalcutta.  The High Court rejected the theory of discrimination put forward on
\nthe  basis  that  fixing  60  years  as  age  of retirement for those who were
\nrecruited prior to July 19, 1969 and 58 years of age  who  joined  after  that
\ndate lacked  an intelligible differentia.  The Calcutta High Court pointed out
\nthat the terms and conditions of the service of the  employees  of  the  banks
\nwhich  were  taken over under the Act had been protected by the Act and it was
\nnot possible to hold that there had been any  hostile  discrimination  against
\nthe petitioner  in  that  case.   We are of the view that the decisions of the
\nMadras High Court and the Calcutta High Court, referred to above, lay down the
\ncorrect principle.  It is true that if the nationalised banks wanted to reduce
\nthe age of retirement of the transferred employees they could  have  done  so.
\nBut  they  have  tried to standardise their conditions of service and to bring
\nabout  some  uniformity  without  giving   room   for   much   discontent   or
\ndissatisfaction.   The  question  involved  in  this matter is not one of mere
\ncompetence.  It involves justice and fairness  too.    Having  regard  to  all
\naspects  of  the matter, the nationalised banks have tried to be fair and just
\ninsofar as the question of age of retirement is concerned.  We cannot  say  in
\nthe  circumstances that the Bank’s attitude is unreasonable, particularly when
\nthe age of retirement of  the  new  entrants  is  quite  consistent  with  the
\nconditions prevailing in almost all the sectors of public employment.\n<\/p>\n
17.   We  are  of  the  view that the classification of the employees into two
\ncategories, i.e., those falling under Rules 1 and 2 of the Rules  for  Age  of
\nRetirement  and  those  falling  under Rule 3 thereof satisfies the tests of a
\nvalid classification laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution.
\nWe  do  not, therefore, find any ground to declare Rule 3 of the Rules for Age
\nof Retirement, which is impugned in this case, as unconstitutional.”\n<\/p>\n
32.  In the present case also, if the resignation is after the introduction of
\nthe pension scheme and if such resignation is in conformity with  the  pension
\nregulations  read with the officers service rules, the individual officer will
\nbe entitled to pension subject to  eligibility.    But  Regulation  22,  which
\nprovides  forfeiture  of  pension  in  this case, as rightly contended, is not
\nviolative of Article 14 and 21, as  Regulation  29  provides  for  pension  on
\nvoluntary  retirement on or after the 1st day of November, 1993 at any time on
\ncompletion of 20 years of qualifying service by giving three months notice and
\nsatisfying the  requirements  stipulated  under  Regulation  29.    Therefore,
\nRegulation   22,   which  provides  for  forfeiture  of  service  in  case  of
\nresignation, which applies only to those who have resigned before 1st  day  of
\nNovember,  1993,  and  such  cut  off  date  cannot be held to be arbitrary or
\nviolative of Article 14 or 21.  The petitioner, who has no  right  to  pension
\neither on the date when he entered the service or on the date when he resigned
\naccording  to  him,  has no right to pension and he cannot, therefore, contend
\nthat Regulation 22 (1) offends either Article 14 or 21.\n<\/p>\n
33.  The reliance placed upon the pronouncement in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
\nVS.  DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION MAZDOOR CONGRESS reported in 1991 Supp.   (1)
\nSCC 600 as well as the pronouncement in RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS.  S.JAYARAJAN
\nreported in  1995  Supp.  (4) SCC 584 will not support the contention advanced
\nby the petitioner.  The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to  lay
\nhis hands on any other authority in this respect to support his contention.\n<\/p>\n
34.   Regulation 22 (1) of The Pension Regulations, which is being challenged,
\nis not arbitrary nor it is irrational nor any accrued rights of the petitioner
\nare being denied.  Hence, this Court holds that the contention that Regulation
\n22 (1) is violative of Article 14 and 21 cannot be countenanced.  Hence,  both
\nthe  points  are  answered  against  the  writ petitioner and in favour of the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
35.  In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, but without costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet :  Yes
\nGLN<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Managing Director
\nCentral Bank of India
\nPlot No.C-6, Block E, V Floor
\nBandra Kurla Complex
\nBandra (E)
\nMUMBAI 400 051.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/02\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN W.P. NO. 6485 OF 2001 V.Subramaniam .. Petitioner -Vs- The Central Bank of India rep. By its Managing Director Plot No.C-6, Block E, V […]<\/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-71659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-14T16:23:21+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-14T16:23:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":5167,\"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\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003\",\"name\":\"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-14T16:23:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-14T16:23:21+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-14T16:23:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003"},"wordCount":5167,"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\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003","name":"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-14T16:23:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subramaniam-vs-the-central-bank-of-india-on-21-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/71659","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=71659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}