{"id":75922,"date":"2003-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003"},"modified":"2017-06-15T19:51:17","modified_gmt":"2017-06-15T14:21:17","slug":"k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003","title":{"rendered":"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 29\/01\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN\n\nWRIT PETITION NO. 13507 of 1998\n\nK.Saroja                       ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Secretary to Government\n   of Tamil Nadu,\n   Public (Political Pension II)\n   Department, Secretariat,\n   Chennai-9\n\n2. The Collector of  Perambalur District\n   Perambalur                                           ..Respondents\n\n\nFor petitioner::  Mr.M.V.Krishnan\n\nFor respondents:  Mrs.D.Malarvizhi\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India  praying\nfor the issue of a writ of certiorari, as stated therein.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the
\nrespondent  to implement G.O.Ms.No.1243 Political Pension Department-II, dated
\n8.10.1997 and pay Rs.1500 per month as Freedom Fighter’s Pension as  dependent
\nof Krishnasamy Padayachi, Ex-Indian Army person, who was granted pension.\n<\/p>\n
        2.    Heard   Mr.M.V.Krishnan,   learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\npetitioner and Mr.D.Malarvizhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for  the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The petitioner, widow of late Krishnasamy Padayachi has approched
\nthis court seeking for a direction that the entire pension of Rs.1  500\/=  per
\nmonth  has to be paid to her as the dependant of deceased Indian National Army
\npensioner.  The petitioner’s husband late Krishnasamy Padayachi was a  soldier
\nin the  Indian  National Army.  The said Krishnasamy Padayachi during his life
\ntime receiving Freedom Fighters  Pension  as  per  the  orders  of  the  State
\nGovernment.   The  pension  sanction proceedings provides that pension will be
\npaid to the freedom fighter and after his life time to the widow till death or
\nremarriage or till the petitioner’s income exceeds a particular sum.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The petitioner asserts that she  has  not  remarried  and  she  is
\nentitled to  payment  of  pension.   The pension has been revised from time to
\ntime and a monthly pension of Rs.1500\/= was being paid.  The pension has  also
\nbeen  subsequently  revised  at  the  time  of  death  of the said Krishnasamy
\nPadayachi.  He had left his two widows and therefore the respondent was paying
\nthem one one half each.   The  other  widow  passed  away  and  therefore  the
\npetitioner  represented  that she should be paid the full pension of Rs.1500\/=
\nper month.  Despite several representations the respondents have not chosen to
\ntake any action.  Hence the present writ petition to direct the respondents to
\npay the full pension as the sole surviving widow  of  the  deceased  pensioner
\nKrishnasamy Padayachi.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   On  behalf  of  the  respondents,  the  first  respondent filed a
\ncounter.   According  to  the  respondents,  late  Krishnasamy  Padayachi   of
\nAndimadam  Village  by virtue of membership with Indian Army was granted State
\nFreedom Fighters Pension with effect from 21.7.1967 as  per  Freedom  Fighters
\nPension Order  No.3214\/69,  dated  1.2.1969.    The said Krishnasamy Padayachi
\npassed away on 24.8.1973 leaving two wives at the time of his death.  The writ
\npetitioner is the second wife and  she  applied  for  family  pension  without
\ndisclosing the existence of the first wife Rajammal of the deceased pensioner.
\nBased  upon  the  said representation, after enquiry the Government sanctioned
\none half of payment of Freedom Fighters Pension to the writ petitioner and the
\nother half of the pension to the said Rajammal.  Such order was  passed  after
\nthorough investigation as per the report of the District Collector.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The Family Pension has been fixed and the petitioner was paid 50%
\nof the Family Pension, namely Rs.750\/= and the other widow Rajammal  was  paid
\nthe  other  half  The  said  Rajammal,  the first wife of the deceased-freedom
\nfighter -pensioner expired on 9.11.1992.   The  petitioner  applied  for  full
\npension including  the  50%  share that was being paid to Rajammal.  The State
\nGovernment by letter dated 22.10.1996 turned down the request as there  is  no
\nprovision  in  the  Tamil  Nadu  Freedom  Fighters  Pension  Rules  annexed to
\nG.O.Ms.No.2064, Public dated 28.3.1966 as amended  by  subsequent  G.O.No.699,
\ndated  18.3.1980  for  sanction  of  full pension to the surviving wife on the
\ndemise of the freedom fighter’s first wife.  As per rule  7  of  the  Rules  a
\nshare  of  pension  payable  to  the  first  wife is payable till her death or
\nremarriage.  The petitioner is entitled to only one half and she cannot  claim
\nthe other  half  even  after  the  death  of  Rajammal.  The petitioner is not
\nentitled to the relief of mandamus prayed for as she has no  legal  right  and
\nthe respondents pray for the dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The points that arise for consideration are:\n<\/p>\n
        (A)     Whether  on  the  death of one of the two widows the surviving
\nwidow will be entitled for payment of full family pension that  was  paid  for
\nboth the widows as dependent of the deceased pensioner?\n<\/p>\n
        (B)     Whether  the  petitioner is entitled to the relief of mandamus
\nprayed for?\n<\/p>\n
        8.  There is no dispute that the petitioner Krishnaswamy Padayachi who
\nwas receiving pension as an Ex-Indian National  Army  personnel,  passed  away
\nleaving his  two widows.  Therefore the State Government, the first respondent
\npassed orders directing payment of  pension  payable  to  the  family  of  the
\ndeceased in  two  equal  moieties  to  the  two  widows.  Both the widows were
\nreceiving one half of the pension which  was  being  paid  to  their  deceased
\nhusband till  his  life time and they continue to share the same equally.  One
\nof the two widows died and the petitioner, surviving widow  claimed  that  the
\nentire  family  pension should be paid to her and there is no justification to
\ndeny the other half which was being paid to deceased co widow.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner  being  one
\nof  the  surviving widows is entitled to one half by way of family pension and
\ntherefore she is not entitled to the relief prayed for in this writ  petition.
\nConcedingly  there  is  no  rule  or  regulation  that has been framed in this
\nrespect by the State Government,  nor  there  is  any  scheme  regulating  the
\nsuccession among  the  co  widows.  In the absence of any Government Orders or
\nNotification or Rules or Scheme we have to examine what is the  right  of  the
\nwidows  on  the death of their husband who was a recipient of Freedom Fighters
\nPension during his life time or the right of surviving widow.  In the  counter
\nexcept  stating  that  the petitioner is not entitled to entire person and the
\npetitioner cannot claim the other half which was being paid  to  the  deceased
\nRajammal,  co  widow,  no rule or order or statutory provision is being relied
\nupon by the respondents in this respect.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Pension in this case is admissible under the Scheme framed by the
\nState Government to the Freedom Fighter and Krishnasamy Padayachi and  on  his
\ndeath to  his  family members.  Family Members are being paid and continued to
\nbe paid with the family pension on the untimely death of the deceased  husband
\nwhich  results  in the dependent namely the widow being a destitute and she is
\ngranted special family pension.  Such family pension is admissible on  account
\nof the the status of the widow or plurality of the widows, if they are legally
\nmarried.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   On  the  death  of  the  husband  such  pension by no stretch of
\nimagination  could  ever  form  part  of  the  estate  of  the  deceased   and
\nconsequently it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition.
\nThis  legal  position  has  been laid down by the Apex Court in Jodh Singh Vs.
\nUnion of India, reported in 1980 (4) SCC 306.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Taking the case of succession by co widows inheriting husband’  s
\nproperty, it is the settled legal position that they become joint tenants with
\nrights of survivorship.    In  Karpagathachi and others Vs.  Nagarathinathchi,
\nreported in AIR 1965 SC 1752, the Apex Court held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“3.  We are of opinion that  the  first  contention  of  Mr.Viswanatha  Sastry
\nshould be  rejected.    Under  the  Hindu  law as it stood in 1924, two widows
\ninheriting their husband’s  properties  took  together  one  estate  as  joint
\ntenants with rights of survivorship and equal beneficial enjoyment.  They were
\nentitled  to  enforce  a  partition  of  those  properties  so that each could
\nseparately possess and enjoy the portion allotted to  her,  see  Bhugwan  Deen
\nDoobey Vs.   Myna Baee, 11 Moo Ind.App.487 (PC), Gauri Nath Kakaji V.  Mt.Gaya
\nKuar, 55 Ind App 399:  (AIR 1928 PC 251) Neither could without the consent  of
\nthe  other  enforce  an  absolute partition of the estate so as to destroy the
\nright of  survivorship,  see  Commissioner  of  Income-tax  V.     Smt.Indiara
\nBalakrishna<\/a> 1960-3  SCR  513 at p.515.  But by mutual consent they could enter
\ninto any arrangement regarding  their  respective  rights  in  the  properties
\nduring  the  continuance of the widows estate, and could absolutely divide the
\nproperties so as to preclude the right of survivorship of each to the  portion
\nallotted to the  other.    See Ramakkal Vs.  Ramasami naickan, ILR 22 Mad 522,
\nSudalai Ammal V.  Gomathi Ammal<\/a> 28  Mad  LJ  355.    Likewise,  two  daughters
\nsucceeding to their fathers estate as joint tenants with right of survivorship
\ncould enter  into a similar arrangement.  See Kailash Chandra Chuckerbutty Vs.
\nKashi Chandra ILR 24 Cal 339, Subbammal Vs.  Krishna  Aiyar  26  Mad  LJ  479,
\nAmmani Ammal V.    Periasami  Udayan<\/a> 45 Mad LJ 1.  Such an arrangement was not
\nrepugnant to S.6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.   the  interest  of
\neach  widow in the properties inherited by her was property, and this property
\ntogether  with  the  incidental  right  of  survivorship  could  be   lawfully
\ntransferred.   Section  6(a)  of  the  Transfer  of Property Act prohibits the
\ntransfer of the bare chance of the surviving widow taking the entire estate of
\nthe next heir of her husband on the death of the co widow,  but  it  does  not
\nprohibit  the  transfer by the widow of her present interest in the properties
\ninherited by her together with the incidental  right  of  survivorship.    The
\nwidows  were competent to partition the properties and allot separate portions
\nto each and incidental to such an allotment, each could  agree  to  relinquish
\nher right  of  survivorship  in  the  portion allotted to the other.  The fist
\ncontention of Mr.  Viswanatha Sastry must be rejected.”\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The above pronouncement will govern the case  where  husband  has
\nleft an  estate, which is to be inherited by the co-widows.  But, in this case
\nfamily pension being paid is not part of  the  estate  left  by  the  deceased
\nhusband, but it is part of the claim under which the widow is entitled to such
\na payment on the death of her husband, so that she could lead a normal life.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In Anar Kumari Vs.  Jamuna Prasad Singh, reported in 1976 (4) SCC
\n826,  the  Apex  Court  while following the pronouncement in Karpagathathi Vs.
\nNagarathinatchi, (AIR 1965 SC 1752) held that the widows take a  character  of
\njoint  tenants  and none of them has a right to enforce the absolute partition
\nof the estate against them so as to destroy the right of survivorship.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  The status of  co-widows  or  Co-heiresses  and  their  right  of
\nsuccession  as  joint  tenants  was  the  subject  matter  of consideration in
\nBrahmvart Sanathan Dharam Mahamandal, Kanpur and others Vs.   Prem  Kumar  and
\nothers, reported  in  1985  (3) SCC 350.  While approving the passage in Hindu
\nLaw by N.R.Raghavachari, the legal position has been summarised as hereunder:
\n“Where two widows succeed as co-heiresses to their husband’s  estate,  one  of
\nthem cannot alienate the property without the consent of the other even though
\nthe alienation for the necessity of the estate.  They are entitled to obtain a
\npartition  of  separate portions of the property and deal as each pleases with
\nher own life interest, but she cannot alienate any part of the corpus  of  the
\nestate  by  gift  or  will  so as to prejudice the rights of the survivor of a
\nfuture reversioner.  If they act together, they can burden the reversion  with
\nany  debts contracted owing to legal necessity, but one of them acting without
\nthe authority express or implied of the other cannot prejudice  the  right  of
\nsurvivorship by burdening or alienating any part of the estate.  The mere fact
\nof partition between the two, while it gives each a right to the fruits of the
\nseparate estate assigned to her, does not imply a right to prejudice the claim
\nof  the  survivor to enjoy the full fruits of the property during her lifetime
\nand a mortgage by a Hindu widow even for necessary purposes, when she has  not
\neven  asked  her  co  widow to consent to the granting of the mortgage, is not
\nbinding upon the joint estate so as to affect the interest  of  the  surviving
\nwidow,  and  the  mere fact that there has been enmity between the cowidows is
\nnot justification for the failure to take the consent of the cowidow.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  In Poonamal Vs.  Union of India, reported in 1985 (3) SCC 345, in
\nrespect of family pension payable under the Contributory Family Pension Scheme
\nof 1985, the Apex Court held that pension is not merely a statutory right, but
\nit is the fulfillment of constitutional promise as it partakes  the  character
\nof  public assistance in case of unemployment, old age, disablement or similar
\nother cases of undeserved want.  In that respect, the Apex Court held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        “7.  It is not necessary to  examine  the  concept  of  pension.    As
\nalready  held  by  this  court in numerous judgments pension is a right, not a
\nbounty or gratuitous payment.  The payment of pension does not depend upon the
\ndiscretion o the Government but is governed by the relevant rul;es and  anyone
\nentitled  to  the  pension  under the rules can claim it as a matter of right.
\n(Deoki Nandan Prasad Vs.  State of Bihar (197 1 (2) SCC  330)  and  D.S.Nakara
\nVs.  Union of India (1983 (1) SCC 305).  Where the Government Servant rendered
\nservice  to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the widow and
\nthe dependent minors would equally be entitled to family pension as a matter o
\nright.  In fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as  a
\nfulfillment  of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character
\nof public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar
\nother cases of undeserved want.  Relevant  rules  merely  make  effective  the
\nconstitutional mandate.    That  is  how  pension  has  been  looked  upon  in
\nD.S.Nakara judgment.  At the hearing of this group of matters wee pointed  out
\nthat  since  the  family  pension scheme has become non-contributory effective
\nfrom September, 22, 1977 any attempt at denying  its  benefit  to  widows  and
\ndependents  of  Government  servants  who  had not taken advantage of the 1964
\nliberalisation scheme by making or agreeing  to  make  necessary  contribution
\nwould  be denial of equality to persons similarly situated and hence violative
\nof Article 14.  If widows and dependents of deceased Government servants since
\nafter September 22, 1977 would be  entitled  to  benefits  of  family  pension
\nscheme  without  the  obligation of making contribution, those widows who were
\ndenied the benefits on the ground that  the  Government  servants  having  not
\nagreed  to  make the contribution, could not be differently tread because that
\nwould be introducing an invidious classification  among  those  who  would  be
\nentitled to similar treatment.  When this glaring dissimilar treatment emerged
\nin  the  course  of hearing in the court, Mr.B.Dutta learned counsel appearing
\nfor the union of India requested for  a  short  adjournment  to  take  further
\ninstructions.”\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In Violet Issaac Vs.  Union of India reported in 1991 (1) SCC 725
\n, the scope of claim with respect to family pension on the basis of a Will was
\nthe issue.    While  negativing  the claim of persons who claimed testamentary
\nsuccession, the Apex Court held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to  provide  relief  to
\nthe  widow  and  children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the
\ndeceased employee.  The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to
\nfamily pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who  are  entitled  to
\nreceive the  family  pension.    Thus, no other person except those designated
\nunder the Rules are entitled to receive family pension.  The employee  has  no
\ntitle  nor  any  control over the family pension as he is not required to make
\nany contribution to it.  The family pension scheme  is  in  the  nature  of  a
\nwelfare scheme.    Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him
\nto dispose of the same by  testamentary  disposition.    Accordingly,  in  the
\npresent case the widow of the deceased Railway employee is entitled to receive
\nthe  family pension, notwithstanding the will alleged to have been executed by
\nthe deceased.”\n<\/p>\n
        18.  In the present case the deceased has not  left  any  other  heirs
\nexcept  his  two  widows and therefore the two widows were being paid equally.
\nEven according to the scheme if there is only one widow then the entire family
\npension should be paid to the said sole widow.  If there  are  more  than  one
\nwidow,  then the payment of the family pension is being made in equal moieties
\nto the two widows.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Had there not been two widows, the petitioner will be entitled to
\nthe entirety of the pension.  As there were two widows on  the  death  of  the
\ndeceased-pensioner, it  was  paid  in  equal  moieties.   Therefore the family
\npension on the death of one of the co widows, the other co widow will  get  in
\nits entirety as if she is the sole widow.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  In the light of the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court and
\nthe  nature  of  right  that  has been conferred under the Pension Rules, this
\ncourt holds that the writ petitioner is entitled for payment of  the  entirety
\nof  the  family  pension,  which  was  being  paid to both the widows in equal
\nmoieties and the respondent is directed to pay all the arrears since the death
\nof the co widow Rajammal and continue to pay the full family  pension  to  the
\npetitioner directly  during  her  life  time.  Both the points are answered in
\nfavour of the petitioner and against the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  The respondents are granted time to pay  arrears  of  pension  by
\nthree  months  from  the  date  of  communication  of  a copy of this order or
\nproduction of a copy by the petitioner.  The writ petition is  allowed.    The
\nparties shall bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes
\ngkv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/01\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 13507 of 1998 K.Saroja ..Petitioner -Vs- 1. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Political Pension II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 2. The Collector of Perambalur […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-15T14:21:17+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-15T14:21:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2904,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003\",\"name\":\"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-15T14:21:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-15T14:21:17+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003","datePublished":"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-15T14:21:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003"},"wordCount":2904,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003","name":"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-15T14:21:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-saroja-vs-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Saroja vs Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/75922","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=75922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}