{"id":74116,"date":"1990-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990"},"modified":"2016-11-20T00:04:43","modified_gmt":"2016-11-19T18:34:43","slug":"smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And &#8230; on 1 March, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And &#8230; on 1 March, 1990<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1229, \t\t  1990 SCR  (1) 753<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N Ojha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ojha, N.D. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSMT. SHAKUNTALA MEHRISHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITFEE AND ORS:.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\nBENCH:\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR 1229\t\t  1990 SCR  (1) 753\n 1990 SCC  (3) 521\t  JT 1990 (1)\t386\n 1990 SCALE  (1)421\n\n\nACT:\n    Civil Services: Delhi School Education Rules, 1973: Rule\n126-Pension--Employees\t   of\t  aided\t    Schools--Payment\nof--Directions issued.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The petitioner joined as a primary teacher in 1952 in an\naided recognised school. She was making contribution towards\ncompulsory  provident fund. In 1975, the  Delhi\t Administra-\ntion,  in consultation with the Accountant General,  Central\nRevenue,  issued a notification under Rule 126 of the  Delhi\nSchool Education Rules, 1973, laying down detailed procedure\nfor disbursement of pension and gratuity as also  accounting\nof  General  Provident Fund in respect of the  employees  of\naided schools. The petitioner opted for the aforesaid scheme\nin  1976,  which was duly counter-signed  by  the  Education\nOfficer.\n    After the petitioner retired in 1977, she made a  number\nof representations to the authorities concerned for  payment\nof  pension and gratuity. She got a reply in 1987  that\t her\ncase  had been referred to the Government for  policy  deci-\nsion.  Ultimately,  Delhi  Administration  promulgated\t the\npension scheme in the primary aided schools on and effective\nfrom 6th December, 1988.\n    The\t petitioner in her Writ Petition before\t this  Court\nrelied\ton the scheme announced by the Delhi  Administration\nand the option exercised by her. She claimed that to deprive\nher  of the pension and gratuity under the said\t scheme\t was\nwithout any justification.\n    On\tbehalf of the respondents it was contended that\t the\nscheme\twas  brought  into force only in 1988  by  the\tsaid\nnotification whereby the modalities for grant-in-aid to\t the\nlocal  authorities were finalised and since  the  petitioner\nretired\t from service in 1977, she was not entitled to\tpen-\nsion prior to the said notification.\nAllowing the Writ Petition, this Court,\nHELD: 1. The school in which the petitioner was working\t was\nan\n754\naided  school  within the meaning of S. 2(d)  of  the  Delhi\nEducation  Act and its employees were entitled to the  bene-\nfits conferred by the notification dated 17th October, 1975.\n[757B-C]\n    2.\tSince  the Central Civil Services  (Pension)  Rules,\n1972 would apply to the petitioner as contemplated by  noti-\nfication dated 17th October, 1975, she is obviously entitled\nto get pension with effect from the date on which she ceased\nto be borne on the establishment. of the school in which she\nwas working consequent upon reaching the age of\t superannua-\ntion. [757F-G]\n    3.\tThe  said  notification having been  issued  by\t the\ncompetent authority and the petitioner, who was an  existing\nemployee of an aided school on the date of the issue of\t the\nsaid notification, having opted for the pension and gratuity\nwithin\tthe  stipulated period in  the\tprescribed  proforma\nwhich  was duly countersigned by the Education Officer,\t she\nobviously  became entitled to the benefits conferred by\t the\nsaid  notification. This is so all the more in view  of\t the\nfact that the notification dated 17th October, 1975 did\t not\ncontemplate  finalisation of the modalities about  contribu-\ntion  towards pension fund as a condition precedent  to\t the\nentitlement of the benefits under the said notification. The\nfinalisation of the said modalities was a matter of  details\namong the authorities concerned and could have no bearing on\nthe  entitlement to the benefits of the\t notification  dated\n17th  October, 1975. Such finalisation could not even  defer\nthe date of the entitlement. [758A-C]\n    4. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner\npension\t admissible to her in pursuance of the\tnotification\ndated  17th October, 1975 with effect from the date  of\t her\nretirement  and\t also  to pay to her  the  other  retirement\nbenefits.  They are further directed to finalise the  requi-\nsite  formalities in this behalf within three mouths and  to\nissue payment orders immediately thereafter. [758H; 759A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)\t No.<br \/>\n623 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).<br \/>\nRangarajan and San jay Parokh for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>     G.B.  Pai,\t V.K.  Sharma and R.K.\tMaheshwari  for\t the<br \/>\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">755<\/span><br \/>\n    OJHA, J. The gravamen of the grievance of the petitioner<br \/>\nis  that  even though she retired on 3 ist October  1977  on<br \/>\nreaching  the age of superannuation and even though she\t was<br \/>\nentitled to pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits,<br \/>\nthe respondents have kept her deprived therefrom without any<br \/>\njustification  for  all\t these long years. She\thas  made  a<br \/>\nprayer\tthat  the respondents may be directed  to  make\t the<br \/>\nrequisite  payments to her at least now when she was  almost<br \/>\nat  the fag end of her life. Brief facts necessary  for\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of  this petition are that the  petitioner  joined<br \/>\nR.M.  Arya  Girls Patshala, New Delhi, which  was  an  aided<br \/>\nrecognised school, as a primary teacher in the year 1952 and<br \/>\nhad  been making contribution towards  compulsory  Provident<br \/>\nFund. On 17th October, 1975, the Administrator of the  Delhi<br \/>\nAdministration in consultation with the Accountant  General,<br \/>\nCentral\t Revenues, issued a notification in exercise of\t the<br \/>\npower  conferred  on  him by Rule 126 of  the  Delhi  School<br \/>\nEducation Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)<br \/>\nlaying\tdown detailed procedure for disbursement of  pension<br \/>\nand gratuity and accounting of General Provident Fund to the<br \/>\nemployees of the aided schools under the Delhi Education Act<br \/>\n1973  (for short the Act) and the Rules\t flamed\t thereunder.<br \/>\nThe sad notification, inter alia, provided:<br \/>\n&#8220;Further  rule 126 of the Delhi School Education Rules\t1973<br \/>\nlays down that the Administrator shall, in consultation with<br \/>\nthe  A.G.C.R. specify the detailed procedure for  accounting<br \/>\nof provident fund and payment of pension and gratuity to the<br \/>\nemployees of the aided schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t In  order  to implement the provision\treferred  to<br \/>\nabove  the  detailed procedure is prescribed  hereafter.  In<br \/>\nregard to matters not specified in the procedure the  provi-<br \/>\nsions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as<br \/>\namended\t from time to time and other general  provisions  of<br \/>\nthe Act\/ Rules shall apply.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  The employees of the aided schools shall be  enti-<br \/>\ntled  to  pension  and\/or gratuity in  accordance  with\t the<br \/>\nprovisions and procedure applicable to the employees of\t the<br \/>\nsimilar categories of Delhi Administration under the  exist-<br \/>\ning pension rules as contained in the Central Civil Services<br \/>\n(Pension)  Rules, 1972 as amended from time to\ttime.  These<br \/>\nrules  shall be applicable to these employees of  the  aided<br \/>\nschools\t who were appointed on or after the commencement  of<br \/>\nthe Act\/Rules and also to the existing<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">756<\/span><br \/>\nemployees  who opt for the pension and gratuity\t within\t the<br \/>\nstipulated period in the prescribed proforma.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    The school in which the petitioner was working being  an<br \/>\naided  school under the Act and the  notification  aforesaid<br \/>\nbeing  applicable to its employees the petitioner  made\t the<br \/>\nrequisite option in the prescribed proforma on 29th  January<br \/>\n1976  which was duly countersigned by the Education  Officer<br \/>\non 2nd April 1976. After her retirement, the petitioner made<br \/>\nseveral representations for payment of pension and  gratuity<br \/>\netc.  to the authorities concerned but each time  the  peti-<br \/>\ntioner\tdid not get any better response than an\t information<br \/>\nthat her case was under active consideration. By his  letter<br \/>\ndated 27th February, 1987, i.e. after nearly 10 years of the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s  retirement,  the Joint Director  of  Education<br \/>\n(FIN.) Old Secretariat, Delhi, conveyed to her an additional<br \/>\ninformation  apart from the usual one namely that  her\tcase<br \/>\nwas  under active consideration, that further action in\t the<br \/>\nmatter\twill be taken by the Department soon after the\tpro-<br \/>\nposal  is approved by the Government of India. By  a  subse-<br \/>\nquent  letter dated September 29, 1987, the  petitioner\t was<br \/>\ninformed  by the Education Officer that the  Directorate  of<br \/>\nEducation  had referred the case to Government of  India  on<br \/>\n26th March, 1987 for policy decision. Ultimately the  Direc-<br \/>\ntorate\tOf Education, Delhi Administration, promulgated\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of pension scheme in the primary aided schools  on<br \/>\n6th  December 1988. This decision, inter alia, provided\t for<br \/>\npayment\t of grant-in-aid to the local authorities  concerned<br \/>\nfor  the implementation of the pension scheme already  noti-<br \/>\nfied  vide notification dated 17th October, 1975.  The\tlast<br \/>\nparagraph of the decision provides that &#8220;pensionary benefits<br \/>\nunder  these orders would apply with immediate effect,\ti.e.<br \/>\nfrom the date of issue of these orders&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The prayer made in this petition has been opposed by the<br \/>\nNew Delhi Municipal Committee by filing a counter affidavit.<br \/>\nThe objection raised by the said Committee is that since the<br \/>\npension\t scheme\t was  finally promulgated in  1988  and\t has<br \/>\nprovided therein that the pensionary benefits were to  apply<br \/>\nfrom the date of issue of the requisite order in this behalf<br \/>\nnamely\t6th  December, 1988, the petitioner who\t retired  on<br \/>\n31st  October,\t1977 that is more than 11 years\t before\t the<br \/>\nfinal promulgation of the scheme was not entitled to any  of<br \/>\nthe  benefits claimed by her simply on the ground  that\t she<br \/>\nhad opted for pension before her retirement in pursuance  of<br \/>\nthe  scheme notified on 17th October 1975 which was  in\t the<br \/>\nprocess\t of finalisation at the time of her  retirement.  It<br \/>\nhas also been contended on behalf of the said Committee that<br \/>\nsince  modalities for grant-in-aid to the local\t authorities<br \/>\ncon-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">757<\/span><\/p>\n<p>cerned\tfor  the implementation of the pension\tscheme\twere<br \/>\nprovided for by order dated 6th December 1988 the petitioner<br \/>\nwas not entitled to any pension before this date in any view<br \/>\nof the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are  of<br \/>\nthe opinion that the pleas raised on behalf of the Municipal<br \/>\nCommittee have no substance. As seen above, the\t requirement<br \/>\nunder the notification dated 17th October, 1975 with  regard<br \/>\nto  the school, the employees of which were entitled to\t the<br \/>\nbenefits  of the said notification was that it should be  an<br \/>\naided  school  under  the Act. The term\t &#8220;aided\t school&#8221;  as<br \/>\ndefined\t in Section 2(d) of the Act means a recognised\tpri-<br \/>\nvate  school which is receiving raid in the form of  mainte-<br \/>\nnance  grant from the Central Government,  Administrator  or<br \/>\nlocal  authority  or  any other authority  assigned  by\t the<br \/>\nCentral\t Government, Administrator or a 1ocal authority.  In<br \/>\nparagraph 1 of the petition under the caption &#8220;Facts&#8221; it has<br \/>\nbeen  specifically stated that R.M. Arya Girls Patshala\t was<br \/>\ngranted permanent recognition on 1.4.1936 and was also given<br \/>\ngrant-in-aid.  The  averments made in this  behalf  in\tsub-<br \/>\nparagraphs  (b)\t and  (c) ot paragraph III  of\tthe  counter<br \/>\naffidavit  do not seem to seriously challenge what has\tbeen<br \/>\nstated\tin  paragraph 1 of the petition. It  is,  therefore,<br \/>\napparent that the school in which the petitioner was working<br \/>\nwas such, the employees of which were entitled to the  bene-<br \/>\nfits\/  conferred  by the notification  dated  17th  October,<br \/>\n1975.  The said notification as already pointed\t out  above,<br \/>\ninter alia, provided that in regard to matters not specified<br \/>\nin  the procedure the provisions of the Central Civil  Serv-<br \/>\nices  (Pension),  Rules, 1972 as amended from time  to\ttime<br \/>\nshall apply. Rule 35 of these Rules provides that a superan-<br \/>\nnuation pension shall be granted to a Government servant who<br \/>\nis  retired on his attaining the age of\t compulsory  retire-<br \/>\nment. Rule 83 of these Rules, on the other hand, inter alia,<br \/>\nlays  down  that the pension shall become payable  from\t the<br \/>\ndate on which a government servant ceases to be borne on the<br \/>\nestablishment. Since these Rules will apply to the petition-<br \/>\ner as contemplated by notification dated 17th October  1975,<br \/>\nshe  is obviously entitled to get pension with\teffect\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  date on which she\/ceased to be borne on the  establish-<br \/>\nment of the school in which she was working consequent\tupon<br \/>\nreaching  the age of superannuation. Rule 126 of  the  Rules<br \/>\nunder  which the notification dated 17th October,  1975\t had<br \/>\nbeen issued gives the power to specify procedure for payment<br \/>\nof  pay\t and allowances, pension and gratuity  etc.  to\t the<br \/>\nAdministrator  in consultation with the Accountant  General,<br \/>\nCentral Revenues. The very opening words of the said notifi-<br \/>\ncation\tmake it abundantly clear that the said\tnotification<br \/>\nhad been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by\tRule<br \/>\n126 of the Rules by the Administrator<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">758<\/span><br \/>\nin  consultation with the Accountant General, Central  Reve-<br \/>\nnues. The notification having thus been issued by the compe-<br \/>\ntent  authority and the petitioner who was an  existing\t em-<br \/>\nployee\tof an aided school on the date of the issue  of\t the<br \/>\nsaid notification having opted for the pension and  gratuity<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  stipulated period in  the\tprescribed  proforma<br \/>\nwhich was duly counter-signed by the Education Officer,\t she<br \/>\nobviously  became entitled to the benefits conferred by\t the<br \/>\nsaid  notification. This is so all the more in view  of\t the<br \/>\nfact that the notification dated 17th October, 1975 did\t not<br \/>\ncontemplate  finalisation of the modalities about  contribu-<br \/>\ntion  towards pension fund as a condition precedent  to\t the<br \/>\nentitlement of the benefits under the said notification. The<br \/>\nfinalisation of the said modalities was a matter of  details<br \/>\namong the authorities concerned and could have no bearing on<br \/>\nthe  entitlement to the benefits of the\t notification  dated<br \/>\n17th  October, 1975. Such finalisation could not even  defer<br \/>\nthe date of the entitlement:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Likewise  the said notification did not contemplate\t any<br \/>\napproval by the Government of India as a condition precedent<br \/>\nto  its\t enforceability. In this connection, it is  also  of<br \/>\nsignificance that no statutory provision has been brought to<br \/>\nour notice which made approval by the Government of India of<br \/>\nthe  notification  dated 17th October, 1975  issued  by\t the<br \/>\ncompetent authority as a condition precedent to the enforce-<br \/>\nability of the said notification. As seen above, for  nearly<br \/>\n10  years  after  her retirement the  petitioner  was  being<br \/>\ninformed  in reply to her various representations  that\t her<br \/>\ncase was under active consideration. It is only in 1987 that<br \/>\nthe plea that further action in the matter will be taken  by<br \/>\nthe  Department soon after the proposal is approved  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment of India was raised and the case was referred  by<br \/>\nthe  Directorate of Education to the Government of India  on<br \/>\n26th March 1987 for policy decision. Why it became necessary<br \/>\nto do so in 1987 is a matter of anybody&#8217;s guess. If, at all,<br \/>\nit  only indicates the callous attitude of  the\t authorities<br \/>\nconcerned  towards  the fate of retired employees  of  aided<br \/>\nschools in the matter of grant of pension and other  retire-<br \/>\nment  benefits to them. For ought we know, but for the\tsin-<br \/>\ncere  effort  made by the Indian Council for Legal  Aid\t and<br \/>\nAdvice in this case, which apparently deserves commendation,<br \/>\nthe agony which the petitioner must have suffered during the<br \/>\nlong years after her retirement may have remained  unnoticed<br \/>\nand  unmitigated.  No acceptable justification\thaving\tbeen<br \/>\ngiven  for  denying the pension to the petitioner  from\t the<br \/>\ndate of her retirement as also the other retirement benefits<br \/>\nthe petitioner is obviously entitled to these benefits.<br \/>\nIn  the result, this petition succeeds and is  allowed.\t The<br \/>\nrespon-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">759<\/span><\/p>\n<p>dents are directed to pay to the petitioner pension admissi-<br \/>\nble  to\t her  in pursuance of the  notification\t dated\t17th<br \/>\nOctober,  1975 with effect from the date of  her  retirement<br \/>\nand  also to pay to her the other retirement benefits.\tThey<br \/>\nare  further directed to finalise the requisite\t formalities<br \/>\nin  this  behalf within three months and  to  issue  payment<br \/>\norders\timmediately  thereafter.  The  petitioner  shall  be<br \/>\nentitled  to  her costs from respondents 1 and\t2  which  is<br \/>\nassessed at Rs.2,000.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G.N.\t\t\t\t\t\t    Petition\nallowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">760<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And &#8230; on 1 March, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1229, 1990 SCR (1) 753 Author: N Ojha Bench: Ojha, N.D. (J) PETITIONER: SMT. SHAKUNTALA MEHRISHI Vs. RESPONDENT: NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITFEE AND ORS:. DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/03\/1990 BENCH: OJHA, N.D. (J) BENCH: OJHA, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And ... on 1 March, 1990 - 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\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And ... on 1 March, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990\" \/>\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=\"1990-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-19T18:34:43+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\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And &#8230; on 1 March, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-19T18:34:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990\"},\"wordCount\":1917,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990\",\"name\":\"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And ... on 1 March, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-19T18:34:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And &#8230; on 1 March, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And ... on 1 March, 1990 - 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\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And ... on 1 March, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-19T18:34:43+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\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And &#8230; on 1 March, 1990","datePublished":"1990-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-19T18:34:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990"},"wordCount":1917,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990","name":"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And ... on 1 March, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-19T18:34:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shakuntala-mehrishi-vs-new-delhi-municipal-commitfee-and-on-1-march-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Shakuntala Mehrishi vs New Delhi Municipal Commitfee And &#8230; on 1 March, 1990"}]},{"@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\/74116","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=74116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}