{"id":7872,"date":"2006-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006"},"modified":"2019-01-02T02:01:04","modified_gmt":"2019-01-01T20:31:04","slug":"v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED: 10\/04\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n\nW.P.No.10318 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P.No.11028 of 2005\nand\nW.V.M.P.No.28 of 2006\n\n\n\nV.Arokyam\t\t\t....\t\tPetitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.The Correspondent,\n  R.C.Primary School,\n  Silukkuvarpatty Post,\n  Nilakottai Taluk,\n  Dindigul District.\n\n2.The Additional Assistant\n  Educational Officer,\n  Nilakottai,\n  Dindigul District.\t\t....\t\tRespondent\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of  Mandamus, to direct the respondents to\npermit the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the Academic year\n2005-2006, i.e, till 31.05.2006 in the 1st respondent school on reemployment\nterms with all the benefits and to grant such other and further reliefs.\n\n\t\t\n!For Petitioner\t\t....\tMr.K.Vellaisamy\n\n^For 2nd Respondent \t....\tMr.K.V.Vijayakumar,\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tSpecial Government Pleader.\n\nFor 1st Respondent \t....\tMr.V.Kasinathan\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned<br \/>\nSpecial Government Pleader for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. This writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to<br \/>\npermit the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the academic year<br \/>\n2005-2006 namely till 31.05.2006 in the first respondent school on reemployment<br \/>\nterms and also to confer all benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as a Teacher in<br \/>\nthe year 1973 in the R.C.Primary School in Nilakottai Taluk functioning under<br \/>\nthe R.C.management.  The petitioner was promoted as Headmaster and worked as<br \/>\nHeadmaster from 1999 in the first respondent school till he has attained the age<br \/>\nof superannuation namely, 31.08.2005.  The first respondent school is an aided<br \/>\nschool.  Since the age of retirement by superannuation of the petitioner falls<br \/>\non 31.08.2005 which is the middle of the academic year, the petitioner is<br \/>\nentitled to continue till the end of the academic year as per the G.O.Ms.No.1360<br \/>\ndated 25.08.1972 on reemployment basis and since the petitioner was  fit enough<br \/>\nand there was no disciplinary proceedings of any sort. The petitioner has  sent<br \/>\nan application along with medical fitness certificate dated 08.08.2005 for the<br \/>\npurpose of reemployment till the end of the academic year namely 31.05.2006.<br \/>\nInstead of the  heeding to the request, the first respondent has relieved the<br \/>\npetitioner on 31.08.2005 by  issuing a relieving order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ<br \/>\npetition which was filed in September 2005 for the purpose of direction against<br \/>\nthe respondents to continue the petitioner in services till the end of the<br \/>\nacademic year 2005-2006 namely 31.05.2006 with all benefits on reemployment<br \/>\nterms.  The petitioner has raised the legal issue that as per the government<br \/>\norder, teachers working in the aided schools who retire in the middle of the<br \/>\nacademic year are permitted to continue till the end of the academic year on the<br \/>\nreemployment basis.  Whileso, the petitioner has been denied the said right and<br \/>\ntherefore, it is arbitrary and  violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India.  The first respondent has failed in its legal duty to follow the due<br \/>\nprocess of law in not allowing the petitioner to continue in service.  This<br \/>\nCourt while admitting the writ petition has also passed an order dated<br \/>\n07.12.2005 granting interim direction directing the respondents to permit the<br \/>\npetitioner to continue in service in the first respondent school till the<br \/>\nacademic year of 2005-2006 is over namely, till 31.05.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Even though, the respondent has not filed any counter affidavit,<br \/>\nMr.V.Kasinathan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent apart from<br \/>\nthe learned Special Government Pleader have argued on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would<br \/>\nsubmit that apart from the fact that as per the Government order the petitioner<br \/>\nis entitled as a matter of right to continue in service on the reemployment<br \/>\nbasis after the date of superannuation till the end of the academic year namely<br \/>\n31.05.2006, the conduct of the first respondent in not allowing the petitioner<br \/>\nto continue to work beyond 30.08.2005 is arbitrary and illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. In the circumstance that the petitioner is fit to work and there is<br \/>\nabsolutely no proceeding pending against the petitioner and on the other hand<br \/>\nthe merit certificate has been issued to the petitioner recognising his service<br \/>\nas a teacher his right to continue is legally permissible.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nwould also submit that even before the date of his superannuation which was on<br \/>\n31.08.2005, the petitioner has applied along with medical fitness certificate on<br \/>\n08.08.2005 itself which has not denied by the respondents.  On the other hand,<br \/>\nthe learned counsel placing reliance on the last pay certificate issued by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent, counter signed by the second respondent which is in the<br \/>\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8221;\t\tLAST PAY CERTIFICATE\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1.Last pay certificate of Thiru.V.Arockyam, Primary School Headmaster,<br \/>\nR.C.Primary School, Silukkuvarpatty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.He will be paid and inclusive of following rate of or pay.   Pay &#8230;<br \/>\nRs.8,300\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.He will retire on 31.08.2005, and will be allowed to continue in service<br \/>\non re-employment from 01.09.2005 to 31.05.2006.  His re-employment pay fixed at<br \/>\nRs.4,295\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Details of recoveries to be made : Nil.\n<\/p>\n<pre>\t\tSd\/-\t\t\t   Sd\/-\t\n\tCorrespondent\t\tAdditional \t\t\t\tR.C.Primary School\n\tElementary Educational \t\tSilukuvarpatti\t\tOfficer\n \t\t\t\t\tNilakottai.\n\t\n\t\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t8. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner having<br \/>\nadmitted that the petitioner will be permitted to continue in service on<br \/>\nreemployment basis from 01.09.2005- 31.05.2006 there was absolutely no reason to<br \/>\ndeny the same. The learned counsel would rely upon the interim order passed by<br \/>\nthis Court as I have stated earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. On the other hand, Mr.V.Kasinathan, learned counsel  for the first<br \/>\nrespondent would vehemently contend that the petitioner has not taken any steps<br \/>\nfor the purpose of proving that he is fit and he has gone out of employment even<br \/>\non 31.08.2005 and therefore, unless the petitioner makes an application with a<br \/>\nconduct certificate from the management there was no question of reemployment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. At the outset, the law is well settled in respect of the reemployment<br \/>\nrelating to the teachers who retired in the middle of the academic year that<br \/>\nthey are entitled to continue till the end of the academic year which was a<br \/>\npolicy enunciated by the Government for the benefit of the students in having<br \/>\ncontinuity of their education. In the present case, while the petitioner has<br \/>\nspecifically stated that even on 08.08.2005 merely 23 days before his date of<br \/>\nhis superannuation and has produced the medical fitness certificate along with a<br \/>\npetition claiming a right of reemployment, which fact has not been denied by the<br \/>\nrespondent at any point of time.  Therefore, the contention of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the first respondent as if the petitioner has not taken any steps<br \/>\nfor the purpose of claiming reemployment has absolutely no basis at all.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. It is ridiculous to say that the petitioner who has been working under<br \/>\nthe first respondent school must obtain a conduct certificate from the first<br \/>\nrespondent for the purpose of claiming the reemployment right and produce the<br \/>\nsame to the 1st respondent.  On the other hand, it is the mandatory duty on the<br \/>\npart of the management namely the first respondent to see that the petitioner is<br \/>\nprovided that reemployment on the basis of the fitness of the petitioner alone.<br \/>\nIt is relevant because the reemployment is a policy of the Government.  In this<br \/>\ncase, the first respondent being the aided school is not going to lose  anything<br \/>\ninasmuch as the Government is going to pay the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. There is one other circumstance also. By the reemployment till the end<br \/>\nof the academic year it is not as if the first respondent management cannot fill<br \/>\nup the vacancy.  Astonishingly, in this case, the first respondent as well as<br \/>\nthe second respondent have categorically admitted in the certificate issued by<br \/>\nthem  as I have elicited above that the petitioner will be allowed to continue<br \/>\nin service or reemployment from 01.09.2005 to 31.05.2006. Even they have fixed<br \/>\nthe pay for reemployment at the rate of Rs.4,295\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p> \t14. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, apart from the<br \/>\napplication of the legal issue, I am of the considered view that the petitioner<br \/>\nis certainly entitled for the reemployment till 31.05.2006 and the respondents<br \/>\nare liable to pay the salary to the petitioner as fixed on the reemployment<br \/>\nbasis from 01.09.2005 till 31.05.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. In view of the same, the writ petition stands allowed. There is no<br \/>\norder as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are also<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sms<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Correspondent,<br \/>\n  R.C.Primary School,<br \/>\n  Silukkuvarpatty Post,<br \/>\n  Nilakottai Taluk,<br \/>\n  Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Additional Assistant<br \/>\n  Educational Officer,<br \/>\n  Nilakottai,<br \/>\n  Dindigul District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/04\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.10318 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.11028 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.28 of 2006 V.Arokyam &#8230;. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Correspondent, R.C.Primary School, Silukkuvarpatty Post, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. 2.The Additional Assistant [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006 - 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\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-01T20:31:04+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-01T20:31:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1296,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006\",\"name\":\"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-01T20:31:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006 - 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\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-01T20:31:04+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-01T20:31:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006"},"wordCount":1296,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006","name":"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-01T20:31:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-arokyam-vs-the-cor-on-10-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Arokyam vs The Cor on 10 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/7872","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=7872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}