{"id":84499,"date":"2011-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-16T18:25:46","modified_gmt":"2017-12-16T12:55:46","slug":"surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9409\/1998\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9409 of 1998\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSURAJBEN\nHARJIBHAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nSANGEETA N PAHWA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR AL SHARMA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :\n3, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate Mrs. SN Pahwa on behalf of petitioner, learned AGP<br \/>\n\tMr. AL Sharma appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Though, Rule is<br \/>\n\tserved to respondent no. 3, no appearance is filed by respondent no.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\taffidavit in reply is filed by Deputy Conservator of Forest, S.F.<br \/>\n\tDivision, Surendranagar on 3\/3\/1999.  The additional affidavit in<br \/>\n\treply is also filed by Dy. Conservator of Forest, S.F. Division,<br \/>\n\tSurendranagar on 9\/2\/1999.  The Rule is issued in this matter on<br \/>\n\t4\/2\/2000.  The statement of facts are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;To<br \/>\n\tChallenge:  The action of the respondents of not paying minimum time<br \/>\n\tscale of pay i.e. Rs. 750\/-, Dearness allowance, Medical Allowance<br \/>\n\tand House rent allowance with all the benefits as per G.R. Dated<br \/>\n\t17\/10\/1988 w.e.f. 10\/10\/1996.\n<\/p>\n<p> 1.10.86\t\tThe<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was appointed as \t\t\ta daily wager.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6.6.97\t\tThe<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has filed recovery application no. 156\/94 for getting<br \/>\n\tminimum time scale as per the resolution dated 17\/10\/1988 and the<br \/>\n\tLabour Court had directed the respondent to pay Rs. 52760\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner again filed a recovery application no. 317\/96 demanding<br \/>\n\tminimum time scale which pending before Labour Court, Surendranagar.<br \/>\n\t Juniors to the petitioner had also filed recovery application for<br \/>\n\tgetting minimum time scale on the basis of resolution dated<br \/>\n\t17\/10\/88.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4.3.96\t\tRespondents<br \/>\n\tchallenged the same in the Hon&#8217;ble Court which was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sept,<br \/>\n\t1997\tThe persons juniors to the petitioners were paid their<br \/>\n\trespective claims.\n<\/p>\n<p>Juniors<br \/>\n\tto the petitioner again filed a Special Civil Application No. 382\/97<br \/>\n\tto 387\/92 for getting current wages on the basis of the resolution<br \/>\n\tdated 17\/10\/88 and this Hon&#8217;ble Court has directed the respondents<br \/>\n\tto pay current wages in accordance with the Government Resolution.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tprayer made by petitioner in para 6 (A)(B)(C) are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>(A)<br \/>\n\tYOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or<br \/>\n\tdirection and may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the<br \/>\n\tminimum time scale of Rs. 750, dearness allowance, Medical<br \/>\n\tallowances &amp; HRA alongwith the other benefits of earned leave<br \/>\n\tand public holiday etc., as per GR dated 17\/10\/88 w.e.f. 1.10.96<br \/>\n\tonwards;\n<\/p>\n<p>(B)<br \/>\n\tYOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the<br \/>\n\tcurrent wages in accordance with GR dated 17\/10\/88, pending<br \/>\n\tadmission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;\n<\/p>\n<p>(C)Your<br \/>\n\tLordships be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) as<br \/>\n\tmay be deemed fit in the interest of justice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has claimed benefit of Government Resolution dated<br \/>\n\t17\/10\/88 as petitioner has completed more than eleven years of<br \/>\n\tservice.  Therefore, petitioner is entitled to minimum time scale,<br \/>\n\tDA, HRA and other benefits, which is available to regular selected<br \/>\n\tcandidates.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAGP Mr. AL Sharma appearing on behalf of State Government &#8211;<br \/>\n\trespondent raised contention before this Court that Government<br \/>\n\tResolution dated 17\/10\/1988 is not applicable to Forest Department<br \/>\n\texcept Buildings and Constructions Division as decided by Division<br \/>\n\tBench of this Court in case of Chief Conservator of Forest and<br \/>\n\tAnr. Vs. Ashok N. Pandya &amp; Anr. reported in 2010 (24) GHJ 206.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAGP Mr. Sharma submitted that petitioner is working in maintenance<br \/>\n\tof nursery.  Therefore, view taken by Full Bench of this Court that<br \/>\n\tGovernment Resolution dated 17\/10\/88 is not applicable to<br \/>\n\tmaintenance of Nursery of Forest Department but it only applied to<br \/>\n\tRoads and Buildings Department.  He submitted that Full Bench<br \/>\n\tdecision in case of Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and<br \/>\n\tForest Workers Union Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 (2) GLH<br \/>\n\t302 has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in<br \/>\n\taforesaid decision. He also submitted that Forest Department is not<br \/>\n\tcovered by definition of an Industry under section 2(j) of<br \/>\n\tIndustrial Dispute Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mrs. Pahwa raised contention that similar situated other<br \/>\n\temployees are getting benefits of Government Resolution dated<br \/>\n\t17\/10\/1988 only petitioner has been discriminated by respondent<br \/>\n\tForest Department.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave considered submission made by both learned advocates and<br \/>\n\tconsidering decision of Full Bench of this Court reported in 2004<br \/>\n\t(2) GLH 302 and considering decision of Division Bench of this Court<br \/>\n\treported in 2010 (24) GHJ 206.  The relevant para 1 to 6 are quoted<br \/>\n\tas under:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThis<br \/>\n\tappeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from<br \/>\n\tthe order dated 21st March 1997 passed by the learned<br \/>\n\tSingle Judge in the above Special Civil Application no. 5350 of<br \/>\n\t1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\n\trespondents writ petitioners are employed under the Forest<br \/>\n\tDepartment of the State of Gujarat.  The petitioners are engaged by<br \/>\n\tthe appellant No. 3 Range Forest Officer on daily wages for<br \/>\n\tmaintenance of nursery and forest area in the district Bhavnagar.<br \/>\n\tThe petitioners claimed that they were engaged as daily wage<br \/>\n\temployees from 3 to 20 years and that hey were entitled to the<br \/>\n\tbenefits of semi permanent service benefits conferred under the<br \/>\n\tResolution dated 17th October 1988 passed by the State of<br \/>\n\tGujarat in its Roads and Buildings Department. Learned Single Judge,<br \/>\n\tunder the impugned order dated 21st March 1997, following<br \/>\n\tthe common judgment dated 4th March 1996 passed by a<br \/>\n\tlearned Single Judge in group of petitions, allowed the petition.<br \/>\n\tLearned Single Judge held that the petitioners were entitled to the<br \/>\n\tbenefits under the above mentioned Government Resolution dated 17th<br \/>\n\tOctober, 1988.  Therefore, the present Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\n\tAssistant Government Pleader Ms. Nair has appeared for the<br \/>\n\tappellants.  She has submitted that the question whether or not the<br \/>\n\tDepartment of Forest of the Government of Gujarat is an industry<br \/>\n\twithin the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,<br \/>\n\t1947 and whether or not such employees are entitled to the benefit<br \/>\n\tunder the Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988<br \/>\n\tare set at rest by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in<br \/>\n\tthe matter of GUJARAT FORST PRODUCERS, GATHERERS AND FOREST WORKERS<br \/>\n\tUNION VS. STATE OF GUJARAT (2004 (2) GLH 302.)<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe<br \/>\n\tFull Bench has, in the above judgment held, &#8220;The Forest and<br \/>\n\tEnvironment Department of the State Government is not an industry<br \/>\n\tunder section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the<br \/>\n\tquestion whether any of its unit, establishment or undertaking is an<br \/>\n\tindustry or not will depend upon the nature of work done by such<br \/>\n\tentity and only when the activity under taken amounts to an activity<br \/>\n\tfor production or distribution of goods and\/or services for<br \/>\n\tsatisfying wants and desires of consumers, in the sense in which the<br \/>\n\tconcepts are understood in the field of industrial economy,<br \/>\n\tsatisfying the third ingredient of the triple ingredients test, that<br \/>\n\tsuch unit, establishment or undertaking of the Department can be<br \/>\n\tsaid to be industry, unless falling in the categories removed by the<br \/>\n\tconstitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions of<br \/>\n\tItem IV f the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph<br \/>\n\t161 of Bangalore Water Supply case (supra), including the law<br \/>\n\tfalling under Articles 309 to 311 of the Constitution.  The bench<br \/>\n\tfurther held &#8220;The Government Resolution dated 17h October 1988<br \/>\n\tis applicable to the daily wagers of the Forest &amp; Environment<br \/>\n\tDepartment engaged in the work of maintenance and repairs of<br \/>\n\tconstructions in that Department, and not to the daily wagers<br \/>\n\tengaged in other types of work in that Department.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the above decision of Full Bench of this Court, we must hold<br \/>\n\tthat the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge does not lay<br \/>\n\tdown a good law.  Admittedly, the writ petitioners were engaged<br \/>\n\tunder the Range Forest Officer for maintenance of nursery and forest<br \/>\n\tarea.  The writ petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to the<br \/>\n\tbenefit under the resolution dated 17th October 1988<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Government of Gujarat in its Roads and Buildings<br \/>\n\tDepartment.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tFor<br \/>\n\tthe aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed.  The impugned order<br \/>\n\tdated 21st March 1997 made by the learned Single Judge in<br \/>\n\tthe above Special Civil Application No. 5350 of 1994 is set aside.<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application No. 5350 of 1994 is dismissed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>After<br \/>\n\tconsidering aforesaid decisions and also considering fact that<br \/>\n\tpetitioner is working as daily wager labourer since 1\/3\/1986 and<br \/>\n\tcompleted continue service of more than eleven years.  This being an<br \/>\n\tundisputed fact, aforesaid Government resolution dated 17\/10\/1988 is<br \/>\n\tnot applicable to daily wager those who are working in Forest<br \/>\n\tDepartment Nursery.  The view taken by Full Bench of this Court as<br \/>\n\twell as Division Bench of this Court is binding to this Court.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mrs. Pahwa can not<br \/>\n\tbe accepted.  The prayer made in this petition in para 6(A)(B) can<br \/>\n\tnot be granted in favour of present petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\n\tit is declared that petitioner being a daily wager working in Forest<br \/>\n\tDepartment of Forestry Nursery is not entitled for benefit of<br \/>\n\tGovernment resolution dated 17\/10\/88.  Hence, there is no substance<br \/>\n\tin present petition.  Accordingly, same is dismissed.  Rule is<br \/>\n\tdischarged.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,<br \/>\nJ)<\/p>\n<p>asma<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9409\/1998 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9409 of 1998 ========================================================= SURAJBEN HARJIBHAI &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011 - 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\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-16T12:55:46+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\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T12:55:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1418,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T12:55:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011 - 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\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-16T12:55:46+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\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T12:55:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011"},"wordCount":1418,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011","name":"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T12:55:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajben-vs-state-on-22-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surajben vs State on 22 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/84499","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=84499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}