{"id":71894,"date":"2002-05-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-05-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002"},"modified":"2017-06-29T21:33:30","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T16:03:30","slug":"manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","title":{"rendered":"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: A D Signh<\/div>\n
Bench: A D Singh, R Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  Anil Dev Signh, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
\nJudge dated March 7, 20901 in Civil Writ Petition No. 894 of 2001. The facts giving
\nrise to the writ petition are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 2. The appellant was married to Shri Veerdev Yadav, who was serving as Deputy Commandant in the Border Security Force. On August 29, 1992 Shri Veerdev Yadav
\nlost his life while fighting the naxalites in Karim Nagar District of Andhra Pradesh. At
\nthe time of his death, Shri Veerdev Yadav was survived by the appellant and three
\nmonths old daughter Deepika. In accordance with O.M. NO. 35\/5\/89-P.& P.W.(K),
\ndated April 9, 1990, the appellant Majnu was granted benefit of the liberalized
\npensionary award vide PPO No. 240559248189. On June 19, 1994, the appellant
\ncontracted second marriage as a result whereof the liberalized pensionary award was
\nwithdrawn and in place the of she was granted ordinary family pension.
\nUnfortunately, the second marriage did not work and on February 21, 1997 the same
\nwas annulled by a decree of divorce. After that, from May 25, 1997 to August 28, 1997
\nthe appellant made several representations to the respondents for restoration of the
\nliberalized pension. On September 9, 1997, the request of the appellant was rejected
\nby the respondents. Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition claiming the
\nfollowing reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n
 “In view of the submissions made above, it is, therefore,
\nprayed that a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or writs, order or
\norders, direction or directions may be issued to respondents no.1
\nto 3 to restore the Family Pension to the petitioner which was
\ngranted to her vide P.P.O. No. 240559248184 (Annexure__) with
\neffect from 21\/2\/1997 when the marriage of the petitioner with her
\nsecond husband was annulled, as well as with interest thereon, <\/p>\n
And  <\/p>\n
 It is further prayed that the respondents may also kind be
\ndirected to pay the interim Family Pension to the petitioner during
\nthe pendency of the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 Any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and
\nproper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly
\nbe passed in favor of the petitioner.”\n<\/p>\n
 3. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the action of the
\nrespondents in not restoring liberalized pension after annulment of the second
\nmarriage cannot be said to be illegal since there was no such provision for
\npayment of the same. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ
\npetition of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. With the
\nconsent of the parties the letters patent appeal is being finally disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under Rule 12 (2) of
\nthe Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, a widow or mother of a
\ndeceased member of the force is entitled to family pension and in case a widow
\nremarries, she ceases to be entitled to family pension, but when such remarriage
\nis annulled by divorce, desertion or death of the second husband, her pension is
\nliable to be restored upon proof that she is in necessitous circumstances and
\notherwise deserving. According to the learned counsel, the rule applies mutates
\nmutants to Clause 4 of O.M. No. 33\/5\/89-P.&P.W.(K) dated April, 9, 1990 under
\nwhich family pension equal to pay last drawn by the deceased Government
\nservant is admissible to his widow. The learned counsel contends that the learned
\nSingle Judge was not right in rejecting the prayer of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
\nseriously disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and
\nsubmitted that the appellant was not entitled to receive pension under Clause 4 of
\nthe aforesaid O.M. once she remarried since the benefit there under is available to
\na widow until she remarries and not thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
 7. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nparties, we consider it appropriate to examine Rule 12(2) of the CCS
\n(Extraordinary Pension) Rules and relevant clauses of the aforesaid O.M. dated
\nApril 9, 1990. These reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
 CCS (EXTRAORDINARY PENSION) RULES:\n<\/p>\n
 “Rule 12(2). A family pension will ordinarily be tenable:-\n<\/p>\n
 (i) in the case of widow or mother until death or re-marriage
\nwhichever occurs earlier.\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) In case of minor son or minor brother, until he
\nattains the age of twenty one.\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) In the case of an unmarried daughter or minor sister,
\nuntil marriage or until she attains the age of twenty
\nfour whichever occurs earlier.\n<\/p>\n
 (iv) In case of father, till life.\n<\/p>\n
 Note: The family pension of a widow will cease on re-marriage
\nbut when such remarriage is annulled by divorce, desertion or
\ndeath of the second husband, her pension may be restored upon
\nproof that she is in necessitous circumstances and otherwise deserving.”\n<\/p>\n
 O.M. No. 33\/5389-P.&P.W.(K) dated 9th April, 1990:\n<\/p>\n
 XX XX XX  <\/p>\n
 “2. Applicability   <\/p>\n
 (1) These orders apply to all Civilian Central Government
\nservants, who are governed by the Central Civil
\nServices (Extraordinary Pension) Rules.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) These orders also apply to Civilian Central Government
\nservants, governed by the Workmen’s Compensation
\nAct, 1923, subject to certain adjustments being made as
\nprovided in Paragraph 9.\n<\/p>\n
3. Scope <\/p>\n
 (1) These orders apply to Government servants killed or
\ndisabled-\n<\/p>\n
 (a) as a result of action in international wars;\n<\/p>\n
 (b) as a result of fighting in war-like operations or
\nborder skirmishes with any country.\n<\/p>\n
 (c) while fighting against armed hostile;\n<\/p>\n
 (d) during laying or clearance of mines including
\nenemy mines as also mines sweeping operations between one month before the
\ncommencement and three months after the
\nconclusion of the operations;\n<\/p>\n
 (e) as a result of attack by extremists, anti-social
\nelements, etc., or during action against
\ndacoits, smugglers, hostile, etc.  <\/p>\n
 NOTE.–It has been decided that the Liberalized
\nPensionary Awards as modified shall be extended to
\ncausalities suffered by the civilian Central Government
\nemployees assisting the IPKL in Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
 [G.I., Dept. of P.& P.W. O.M. No. 33\/1\/87-P. & P.W.,
\ndated the 30th December, 1987.] <\/p>\n
 (2) The benefits under these orders will be restricted only
\nto those cases where the death\/disability is directly
\ncaused by actual operations. The following illustrations
\nare mentioned for guidance of sanctioning authorities to
\ndetermine whether the benefits under the scheme are
\nattracted or not. In cases or any doubt cases shall be
\nreferred to the Department of Pension and Pensioners’
\nWelfare.\n<\/p>\n
 xx xx xx    <\/p>\n
 4. Benefit to the family in the event of the death of the
\nGovernment Servant.\n<\/p>\n
 (1) If the Government servant is survived by the widow she
\nwill be entitled to family pension equal to pay last
\ndrawn by the deceased Government servant. The said
\nfamily pension shall be admissible to her for life or
\nuntil her remarriage.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) In the event of re-marriage of the widow family pension
\nwill be allowed at the rates of family pension and
\nsubject to the conditions laid down for family pension
\nunder the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, from the date
\nfollowing the date of her re-marriage.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) If the Government servant is not survived by widow
\nbut is survive by child\/children only, all children
\ntogether shall be eligible for family pension at the
\nfollowing rates:-\n<\/p>\n
  *Basic Pay of Government
\n servant on the date of death
\n  Monthly family pension<\/p>\n
  (i) Not exceeding Rs. 1,500
\n  50% of basic pay.\n<\/p>\n
  (ii) Exceeding Rs. 1,500 but
\n not exceeding Rs.3,000.\n<\/p>\n
  40% of basic pay subject
\n to a minimum of Rs.750<\/p>\n
  (iii)exceeding Rs.3,000
\n  30% of basic pay subject
\n to a minimum of Rs.1,200
\n and maximum of
\n Rs.2,500<\/p>\n
  *Pre-1996 soales of pay.\n<\/p>\n
 The above family pension shall be payable to the children for the
\nperiod during which they would have been eligible for family
\npension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The family pension
\nshall be paid to the senior most eligible child at the time on the
\nlines on which family pension is regulated under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
  xx  xx  xx”\n<\/p>\n
 8. As per Clause 2 of the O.M. dated April 9, 1990, the orders applies to all
\nCivilian Central Government servant, who are governed by the Central Civil Services
\n(Extraordinary Pension) Rules, Civilian Central Government servants governed by
\nthe Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the Government servants killed or
\ndisabled as a result of (a) action in international wars; (b) fighting in war-like
\noperations or border skirmishes with any country; (c) while fighting against armed
\nhostile; (d) during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also mines
\nsweeping operations between  one month before the commencement and three months
\nafter the conclusion of the operations; (e) result of attack by extremists, anti-social
\nelements, etc., or during action against dacoits, smugglers, hostile, etc; and (f)
\ncausalities suffered by the civilian Central Government employees assisting the IPKL in
\nSri Lanka. The benefit is restricted to only those cases where death or disability is
\ndirectly caused by actual operations. It seems to us that the O.M. dated April 9, 1990 is
\npart of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. There is no dispute that the CCS
\n(Extraordinary Pension) Rules apply to the widows or mothers of the deceased
\nmembers of the Border Security Force. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid O.M.
\ndated April 9, 1990 applies to the widows of the members of the Border Security Force
\nwho laid down their lives in the contingencies referred to in Clauses 3(1)(a),(b),(c),(d)
\nand (e). It is significant to note that the Liberalized Pension contemplated by the O.M.
\nis nothing but a form of family pension. Clause 4 of the O.M. Clearly postulates that a
\nsurviving widow whose husband laid down his life in the circumstances mentioned in
\nClause 3 will be entitled to family pension equal to pay last drawn by the deceased
\nGovernment servant. It also needs to be noted that the family pension is admissible to
\nher for life or until her remarriage both under Clause 4 of the O.M. and Rule 12(2) of
\nthe CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules and the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and only
\nthe scale of payment is different. Both the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the
\naforesaid O.M. use the expression “Family Pension”. In case the same words or
\nexpression are used at two different places in a statute, they ordinarily signify the same
\nmeaning. In this regard we may refer to the following decisions of the Supreme Court
\nwherein it was held that when the Legislature uses same word in different parts of the
\nstatute, there is a presumption that the word is used in the same sense:-\n<\/p>\n
 1. Bhogilal Chunnilal Pandya v. State of Bombay,<\/a> ;\n<\/p>\n
 2. K.N. Guruswamay v. State of Mysore, ;\n<\/p>\n
 3. Raghubans Narain Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Government,<\/a> ;\n<\/p>\n
 4. Mohd. Shafi v. VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad,<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
 9. It also appears to us that the expression “family pension” is not of many
\napplications. It is used only in one sense, pension which is due to the family on death
\nof a government servant.\n<\/p>\n
 10. Note to Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules provides that
\nfamily pension of a widow will cease on re-marriage but when such re-marriage is
\nannulled by divorce, desertion or death of the second husband, her pension may be
\nrestored upon proof that she is in necessitous circumstances and otherwise deserving.
\nThis note is applicable to family pension. Not only Rule 12(2) deals with family
\npension but Clause 4 of the O.M., as already seen, also deals with family pension.
\nTherefore, the note not only applies to Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension)
\nRules, but it will also apply to Clause 4 of the aforesaid O.M. dated April 9, 1990. The
\nO.M. dated April 9, 1990 is to be considered as part and parcel of the Central civil
\nServices (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. Therefore, there is no reason why note to Rule
\n12(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules should not apply to Clause 4 of the O.M. dated April
\n9, 1990. The O.M. dated April 9, 1990 is a beneficial provision and must be
\ninterpreted in a manner which would sub-serve the purpose for which the same was
\nissued. There may be a case where a widow, being very young and having to look after
\nchildren form the deceased husband, due to compelling circumstances or pressure of
\nher parents or relatives, gets remarried, but her spouse after few days dies. In such a
\nsituation it will be absolutely unfair, unjust and unreasonable if she loses the status of a
\nwidow of the member of the force who died in action. Surely an interpretation of
\nClause 4 of the O.M. which deprives her of the family pension equal to the pay last
\ndrawn by the first husband who dies fighting for the motherland, will rob her of the
\nmeans to survive since she has to bring up the children born to her from him. In the
\ninstant case, the appellant got married second time but her marriage did not work out
\nand the same was annulled within a short span of about three years. It is not the case
\nof the respondents that the appellant is not in necessitous circumstances and is
\notherwise not deserving. It is also not the case of the respondents that the appellant
\nreceived any amount from her second husband as a settlement for annulling the
\nmarriage. In case the appellant is recognized as the widow of Veerdev Yadav for the
\npurposes of Rule 12 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, there is no reason why she should
\nto considered to have shed her status in his widow for the purposes of Clause 4 of the
\nO.M. dated April 9, 1990. Incongruity while interpreting Rule 12(2) of the CCS
\n(Pension) Rules and Clause 4 of the O.M. must be avoided. In this view we are also
\nsupported by Clause 10 of the O.M. dated April 9, 1990 which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 “10. Procedure for Grant of Awards and Residuary Provisions   <\/p>\n
 (1) The procedure prescribed for grant of award under the CCS
\n(EOP) Rules will continue to be followed for grant of award under these
\norders.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) Except where expressly provided otherwise in these
\norders, the other conditions prescribed for grant of awards under the CCS
\n(EOP) Rules will continue to be applicable.”\n<\/p>\n
 11. It is obvious from a reading of the aforesaid clause that the procedure and the
\nconditions prescribed for grant of awards under the CCS(Extraordinary Pension) Rules are
\nto be followed for grant of award under the O.M.dated April 9, 1990. Therefore, note
\nto Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules which lays down the procedure for
\nrestoration of family pension will be deemed to be a note to Clause 43 of the O.M.
\ndated April 9, 1990. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was not right
\nin declining to issue a direction to the respondents to restore the family pension of the
\nappellant under Clause 4 of the O.M. dated April 9, 1990. Accordingly, we set aside
\nthe order of the learned Single Judge and direct the respondents to restore the family
\npension to the appellant under Clause 4 of the O.M. No. 33\/5\/89-P.&P.W.(K) dated
\nApril 9, 1990. The appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 Author: A D Signh Bench: A D Singh, R Jain JUDGMENT Anil Dev Signh, J. 1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 7, 20901 in Civil Writ Petition No. […]<\/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-71894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - 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\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T16:03:30+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T16:03:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2514,\"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\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\",\"name\":\"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T16:03:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 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":"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - 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\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T16:03:30+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002","datePublished":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T16:03:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002"},"wordCount":2514,"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\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002","name":"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T16:03:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manju-yadav-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-31-may-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manju Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 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\/71894","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=71894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}