{"id":88743,"date":"2010-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2"},"modified":"2015-05-01T07:16:36","modified_gmt":"2015-05-01T01:46:36","slug":"mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                            Decision No. CIC\/DS\/A\/2010\/000331\/SG\/8400Adjunct\n                                                          Appeal No. CIC\/DS\/A\/2010\/000331\/SG\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Appellant                           :    Mr. Mukesh Dewal\n                                         Gumti no. 3, Court Campus,\n                                         District &amp; Sessions Court, Indore\n                                         M.P.\n\nRespondent                          :    Mr. Rehan Ghani,\n                                         PIO &amp; Dy. Director\n                                         Regional office ESI Corporation,\n                                         Panchadeep Bhawan, Nandanagar,\n                                         INDORE--452011\n\nRTI application filed on            :    04\/09\/2009\nPIO replied                         :    06\/10\/2009\nFirst appeal filed on               :    05\/11\/2009\nFirst Appellate Authority order     :    01\/12\/2009\nSecond Appeal received on           :    02\/04\/2010\n\nS. No                  Information Sought                      Reply of the Public Information\n                                                               Officer (PIO)\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.      Furnish information about the land which has been Information is 40 year old, not readily<br \/>\n        given to leprosy organization by KRB at Indore.        available.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      Furnish all documents regarding the lease been No lease has been granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>        provided to the organization.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      Furnish documents regarding lease which has been No land given on lease.\n<\/p>\n<p>        granted to the organization.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.      The corporation has given two lease. Notify the The corporation had ownership of the<br \/>\n        bases of lease which has been given for the purpose land which had been given on lease to<br \/>\n        of housing colony.                                     two organizations.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.      Furnish documents regarding buying of land by the The land bought has been enclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        corporation and the total area of land, give certified<br \/>\n        copy.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      Furnish documents regarding free hold land taken 106.66 acres has been given by the M.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>        by the corporation from M.P. gov.                      govt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Grounds for the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>Unsatisfied with the decision of CPIO.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n<\/p>\n<p>The order given by the CPIO is in order.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                      Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Grounds for the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>Unsatisfied with the order of CPIO &amp; FAA.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on July 5, 2010:<br \/>\nThe following were present<br \/>\nAppellant: Mr. Mukesh Dewal on video conference from NIC-Indore Studio;<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. Rehan Ghani, PIO &amp; Dy. Director;\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;The appellant had identified certain records during the inspection but these were not provided<br \/>\nto him by the PIO on the ground that these were 20 years old. The FAA has in perverse interpretation<br \/>\nof the Section-8(3) of the RTI Act stated that information which is over 20 years old need not to be<br \/>\ngiven. Section 8(3) of the RTI Act states, &#8220;Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-<br \/>\nsection (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place,<br \/>\noccurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall<br \/>\nbe provided to any person making a request under that section:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty<br \/>\nyears has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual<br \/>\nappeals provided for in this Act.&#8221;. Thus Section 8(3) clearly states that for information which is over<br \/>\n20 years old only exemptions under Section 8(1)(a), (c) and (i) would apply. The other seven<br \/>\nexemptions of the RTI Act would not apply. The FAA has also tried to invoke Section 891)(e) of the<br \/>\nRTI Act. This information is certainly not held in a fiduciary capacity by the Public authority and it is<br \/>\nfor the PIO to justify refusal to give information.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure &#8216;information available to a person in his<br \/>\nfiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants<br \/>\nthe disclosure of such information;&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to<br \/>\nsomeone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter&#8217;s benefit within the scope of that relationship.<br \/>\nIn business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a<br \/>\nparticular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important<br \/>\ncharacteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information<br \/>\nwho must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular<br \/>\nbank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to<br \/>\nqualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it<br \/>\nfor the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of<br \/>\ntrust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory<br \/>\nrequirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a<br \/>\nfiduciary relationship.\n<\/p>\n<p>This information is certainly held in a fiduciary capacity by the Public authority. The FAA has also<br \/>\ngone on to invoke Section 8(1)(j) (h) of the RTI Act without any justification. It is apparent that the<br \/>\nFAA is guided only by a strong desire to refuse the information and not by any valid interpretation of<br \/>\nthe law.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant is willing to undertake an inspection of the relevant records again on 12 July 2010. The<br \/>\nPIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the appellant on 12 July 2010 at<br \/>\n10.0am at the office of the PIO.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 2 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> The earlier PIO Mr. H. K. Mehta, Dy. Director has refused the information without any basis in law.&#8221;<br \/>\nDecision dated July 5, 2010:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;The present PIO Mr. Ghani is directed to facilitate an inspection of the records<br \/>\nand provide photocopies of the records which the appellant wants free of cost before 15<br \/>\nJuly 2010 upto 300 pages.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the<br \/>\nthen PIO Mr. H. K. Mehta, Dy. Director within 30 days as required by the law.<br \/>\nFrom the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO is guilty of not furnishing<br \/>\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days,<br \/>\nas per the requirement of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears that the then PIO&#8217;s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice<br \/>\nis being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why<br \/>\npenalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. H. K. Mehta, Dy. Director will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 02<br \/>\nAugust 2010 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be<br \/>\nimposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).\n<\/p>\n<p>If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the<br \/>\nPIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before<br \/>\nthe Commission with him.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>CC:\n<\/p>\n<p>To,<br \/>\n       The then PIO Mr. H. K. Mehta, Dy. Director through Mr. Rehan Ghani present PIO &amp;<br \/>\n       Dy. Director;\n<\/p>\n<p>Facts leading to hearing held on September 9, 2010:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission, by its order dated 05\/07\/2010 directed Mr. Rehan Ghani, PIO\/Deputy Director to<br \/>\nfacilitate an inspection of the records sought by the Appellant and provide photocopies of the records<br \/>\nidentified by the Appellant free of cost before 15\/07\/2010 upto 300 pages. The Commission received a<br \/>\nletter dated 20\/07\/2010 from the Appellant stating that he had inspected the relevant records on<br \/>\n12\/07\/2010 and identified 250 pages of which he required copies. However, he was provided with only<br \/>\n83 pages. The Commission also received a letter dated 14\/07\/2010 from Mr. Rehan Ghani, PIO\/Deputy<br \/>\nDirector claiming that the Appellant had identified only 83 pages. The Commission, by its letter dated<br \/>\n05\/08\/2010 directed the Appellant and Mr. Rehan Ghani, PIO\/Deputy Director to appear before the<br \/>\nCommission on 09\/09\/2010 to decided whether there was a non- compliance of the Commission&#8217;s<br \/>\norder dated 05\/07\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on September 9, 2010:<br \/>\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant: Absent;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent: Mr. Rehan Ghani, PIO\/Deputy Director;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                             Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Mr. Rehan Ghani stated that by letter dated 08\/07\/2010, the Appellant was asked to come for an<br \/>\ninspection of the relevant records at the Construction Branch on 12\/07\/2010. By letter dated<br \/>\n13\/07\/2010, Mr. M. A. Khan, Assistant Director communicated to the PIO that the Appellant inspected<br \/>\nthe relevant records on 12\/07\/2010. Mr. Khan also enclosed copies of the records identified by the<br \/>\nAppellant during the inspection so that the same may be forwarded to the Appellant by the PIO. The<br \/>\nCommission noted that as per the letter dated 12\/07\/2010, copies of only 83 pages were enclosed<br \/>\ntherewith. Copy of the 83 pages was dispatched on 14\/07\/2010, which was received by the Appellant<br \/>\non 19\/07\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>On receipt of the Commission&#8217;s letter dated 05\/08\/2010, the PIO vide letter dated 16\/08\/2010 directed<br \/>\nthe Branch Officer, Construction Branch to enquire into the matter and inform the PIO of the same. Mr.<br \/>\nGhani stated that the Branch Officer vide letter dated 16\/08\/2010 replied that at the inspection, the<br \/>\nAppellant identified 83 pages from the file by putting flags on the file. The Appellant did not provide<br \/>\nany list of the documents identified to the Construction Branch office. The photocopies of the identified<br \/>\ndocuments were sent to the PIO for onward transfer to the Appellant. Accordingly, the PIO sent<br \/>\nphotocopies of 83 pages to the Appellant on 14\/07\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appellant was not present at the hearing. The Commission received a letter dated 20\/07\/2010 from<br \/>\nthe Appellant stating that he had inspected the relevant records on 12\/07\/2010 and identified 250 pages<br \/>\nof which he required copies. However, he was provided with only 83 pages.\n<\/p>\n<p>Adjunct Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the aforesaid, the Commission directs Mr. Rehan Ghani, PIO\/Deputy Director to facilitate an<br \/>\ninspection of the relevant records to the Appellant on October 4, 2010 during office hours. Mr. Ghani,<br \/>\nPIO\/Deputy Director is further directed to ensure that an inspection report is prepared which shall list<br \/>\nthe records that were provided to the Appellant for inspection. This shall also include a categorical<br \/>\nstatement from Mr. Ghani, PIO\/Deputy Director that he has no further records with regard to the<br \/>\ninformation sought by the Appellant other than that made available during the inspection. The report<br \/>\nmust be sent to the Commission before October 11, 2010. Mr. Ghani, PIO\/Deputy Director is also<br \/>\ndirected to provide photocopies of the records identified by the Appellant during inspection free of cost<br \/>\nbefore October 11, 2010 up to 250 pages.\n<\/p>\n<p>This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n<p>Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.<br \/>\nAny information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                    Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                          Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                  September 9, 2010<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ARG)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                              Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/DS\/A\/2010\/000331\/SG\/8400Adjunct Appeal No. CIC\/DS\/A\/2010\/000331\/SG Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Dewal Gumti no. 3, Court Campus, District [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-01T01:46:36+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T01:46:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1664,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T01:46:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-01T01:46:36+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T01:46:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2"},"wordCount":1664,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2","name":"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T01:46:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-deval-vs-ministry-of-labour-and-employment-on-9-september-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Mukesh Deval vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 9 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88743","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=88743"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88743\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}