{"id":73669,"date":"2009-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-30T14:23:32","modified_gmt":"2016-11-30T08:53:32","slug":"mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, &#8230; on 23 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, &#8230; on 23 March, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>             Central Information Commission\n                                                             CIC\/AD\/A\/08\/00221\n\n                                                            Dated March 23, 2009\n\nName of the Applicant                  :   Mr.M.K.Roy\n\nName of the Public Authority           :   Directorate      of       Field   Publicity,\n                                           Shillong\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.    The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.8.5.08 with the CPIO, Directorate of<br \/>\n      Field Publicity. He requested for the following information:\n<\/p>\n<p>      i)     The reasons for the inordinate delay in refixing the pay and delay in<br \/>\n      releasing the arrears of pay &amp; allowances in respect of the applicant,<br \/>\n      consequent on the grant of 2nd ACP by the Directorate General of Field<br \/>\n      Publicity, New Delhi in pursuance of orders passed by Hon&#8217;ble CAT,<br \/>\n      Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.\n<\/p>\n<p>      ii)    The reasons for not supplying him a copy of the detailed working sheet<br \/>\n      of due &amp; drawn statement on the basis of which the arrears has been worked<br \/>\n      out and payment made, despite written request made vide application<br \/>\n      dt.7.4.08.   A copy of the detailed statement\/working sheet may also be<br \/>\n      furnished.\n<\/p>\n<p>      iii)   A copy of the Govt. order\/instructions in which the time limit for<br \/>\n      disposal of representation has been prescribed on various claims of Govt.<br \/>\n      servants along with reasons for not complying with the prescribed time limit.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The CPIO replied on 22.5.08 enclosing the information sought by the<br \/>\n      Applicant on the arrears paid and allowances for the period 1.1.96 to 31.5.02.<br \/>\n      Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.18.6.08 with the<br \/>\n      Appellate Authority stating that the copy of the order of re-fixation of his pay<br \/>\n      has not been furnished. He also stated that the recovery of Rs.39,845\/- on<br \/>\n      account of arrears was irregular and that he has not received the detailed<br \/>\n      statements of recovery of this amount. The First Appellate Authority replied<br \/>\n      on 25.7.08 stating that immediately after receiving the order of enhancing the<br \/>\n      pay of the Applicant&#8217;s pay scale after the verdict of CAT Chandigarh, the office<br \/>\n      had started the processing of arrear payments and that at no point of time<br \/>\n       the office had kept the Applicant in the dark regarding any financial benefit<br \/>\n      due to him. He further stated that the office is re-examining the arrear pay<br \/>\n      for those who have been awarded by the abovementioned CAT and that due<br \/>\n      payment if any would be intimated to the Applicant in due course of time.<br \/>\n      Aggrieved with this reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.22.12.08<br \/>\n      before CIC requesting for settlement of payment of revised pay\/pension with<br \/>\n      interest and also to direct the CPIO to comply with Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI<br \/>\n      Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the<br \/>\n      hearing for March 23, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Mrs. Ranjana Dev Sarmah, Director &amp; CPIO, Delhi and Mr. Engam Pame,<br \/>\n      Director &amp; CPIO, Shillong represented the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    The Applicant was not present during the hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>4.    The Respondent submitted that the case of the Appellant&#8217;s re-fixation of pay<br \/>\n      has been a complex one as there was a court judgment in Bhullar vs. Union of<br \/>\n      India case in which in situ promotion was provided to all TAs who were<br \/>\n      working in the pay scale of 1350-2250\/pre-revised.        However, when the<br \/>\n      orders were first implemented, the names of Shri M.K. Roy and few others<br \/>\n      were not there.     Hence the Regional Office had sent the request for<br \/>\n      incorporation of the names of the above officers along with their service in<br \/>\n      early 2007.   The same along with the revised list was received back in<br \/>\n      Regional Office MMT in December, 2007. The case was then processed and<br \/>\n      the salary refixed at Rs.7250\/- in the scale of Rs.5500-175-9000\/- and orders<br \/>\n      issued in February, 2008. However, PAO raised an objection to the fixation<br \/>\n      and asked the Regional Office to revise the fixation to Rs.7075\/-. Hence the<br \/>\n      matter relating to the fixation was again held up.     Since the officers had<br \/>\n      already retired and refixation would have resulted in recovery amounting to<br \/>\n      Rs.20,000\/- or more, it was decided to take up the issue with the Pay and<br \/>\n      Accounts Office but since they failed to agree, the revised orders were issued<br \/>\n      in January, 2009. However, the fresh due and drawn statement is yet to be<br \/>\n      prepared because a similarly placed case is pending in the Hon&#8217;ble CAT<br \/>\n       Chandigarh Branch, Chandigarh and the issue has separately been taken up<br \/>\n      with the Ministry.   The Respondent then shared with the Commission the<br \/>\n      letter dated 20.11.07 written by the Joint Director, Directorate of Field<br \/>\n      Publicity (DFP) to the Dy. Director (Admn.), stating that the service book of<br \/>\n      the Appellant has been sent to the Directorate New Delhi and that it is<br \/>\n      requested that it be returned to his office so that necessary action can be<br \/>\n      taken for grant of benefit as &#8216;left out person&#8217;, as decided in the matter related<br \/>\n      to Shri J.S. Bhular Vs. Union of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    The Commission noted that all available information with regard to the pay<br \/>\n      fixation has been provided to the Appellant and that all possible efforts are<br \/>\n      being made to address the Appellant&#8217;s grievance.           With regard to the<br \/>\n      Appellant&#8217;s complaint that the DFP has not complied with Section 4(1)(b) of<br \/>\n      the RTI Act, the Commission, while taking a serious note of the issue, directs<br \/>\n      the Public Authority to immediately initiate action in this regard and ensure<br \/>\n      that within one month of receipt of this Order there is complete compliance<br \/>\n      with Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. A compliance report in this regard to be<br \/>\n      sent to the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    The appeal is disposed off.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                   (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                           Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.G.Nair)<br \/>\nDesignated Officer<br \/>\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Mr.M.K.Roy<br \/>\n      116 R.R.Colony<br \/>\n      Shillong<br \/>\n      Meghalaya<\/p>\n<p>2.    The CPIO<br \/>\n      Directorate of Field Publicity<br \/>\n      M\/o Information &amp; Broadcasting<br \/>\n      Regional Office (MMT)<br \/>\n      Shillong<\/p>\n<p>3.    The Appellate Authority<br \/>\n      Directorate of Field Publicity<br \/>\n      East Block-IV, Level &#8211; III<br \/>\n      R.K.Puram<br \/>\n      New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>4.    Officer in charge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>5.    Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, &#8230; on 23 March, 2009 Central Information Commission CIC\/AD\/A\/08\/00221 Dated March 23, 2009 Name of the Applicant : Mr.M.K.Roy Name of the Public Authority : Directorate of Field Publicity, Shillong Background 1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.8.5.08 with the CPIO, Directorate of Field Publicity. [&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":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-73669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, ... on 23 March, 2009 - 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\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, ... on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-30T08:53:32+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, &#8230; on 23 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-30T08:53:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":957,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, ... on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-30T08:53:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, &#8230; on 23 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, ... on 23 March, 2009 - 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\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, ... on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-30T08:53:32+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, &#8230; on 23 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-30T08:53:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009"},"wordCount":957,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009","name":"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, ... on 23 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-30T08:53:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-k-roy-vs-directorate-of-field-publicity-on-23-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.M.K.Roy vs Directorate Of Field Publicity, &#8230; on 23 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/73669","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=73669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}