{"id":94147,"date":"2006-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006"},"modified":"2017-03-07T22:40:35","modified_gmt":"2017-03-07T17:10:35","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: J H.K.Sema<\/div>\n
Bench: H. K. Sema, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5750 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBrahma Dutt Tripathi\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH. K. SEMA & D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
H.K.SEMA,J  <\/p>\n
\tThe challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 19th
\nFebruary 2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
\nof Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
\n21805 of 2003, affirming the judgment and order of 14th July,
\n1997 passed in T.A. No. 551 of 1987 by the Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal, whereby the order of 30th November,
\n1979 declining further extension of service of the respondent
\nbeyond 10th December, 1979 was set aside.  The Tribunal
\nfurther directed that the respondent be accorded the benefit
\nby treating the age of superannuation at 45 years with all
\nother consequential benefits.  Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is
\nfiled by the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent, Brahma Dutt Tripathi, was a Short
\nService Commission Officer commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant
\nduring the Chinese Aggression in 1963.  He was released from
\nthe Indian Army with effect from 31.3.1969.  He applied for
\nCommission in National Cadet Corps (NCC).  He was
\nappointed under the Scheme floated by the Government of
\nIndia for rehabilitation of Short Service Commission Officers in
\nthe Army and he joined the NCC on 11.12.1969.  The Scheme
\nof 21.12.1963 was issued under provisio (iii) to Rule 16 of NCC
\nRules, 1948.   The Scheme under which the respondent was
\nappointed was a composite Scheme.  We will deal with the
\nScheme at an appropriate time.\n<\/p>\n
\tBe  that as it may, he challenged the impugned order of
\n30.11.1979 passed by the Union of India declining to grant
\nextension of his service beyond 10.12.1979 before the High
\nCourt of Judicature at Allahabad which was transferred to the
\nTribunal and was re-numbered as T.A. No. 551 of 1987.  As
\nalready noticed, he was granted Commission in the NCC on
\n11.12.1969 as 2nd Lieutenant and as Lieutenant from
\n12.1.1968.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt appears the principal contention raised before the
\nTribunal was that the respondent was appointed under the
\nprovisions of NCC Rules, 1948 (hereinafter `the Rules’) which
\nlaid down the period of service upto the age of 45 years and
\nsince there is no provision under the Rules for granting
\npermission for fixed tenure, the Union of India is under an
\nobligation to allow him to work upto the age of 45 years and
\ntherefore, the order declining to extend the service of the
\nrespondent prior to the completion of 45 years is violative of
\nArticle 311 of the Constitution.  It is further contended that
\nthe executive order issued by the Government of India by its
\nletter dated 21.12.1963 could not over-ride the statutory
\nRules, and the administrative instructions, to the extent
\ninconsistent with the Rules, are ultra vires the Constitution
\nbeing  violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
\n\tThe short question which arises for our consideration is,
\nas to whether the appointment of the respondent to the NCC
\nCommission was in accordance with the NCC Act and Rules or
\nunder a composite Scheme formulated by the Government of
\nIndia in exercise of its powers under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of
\nthe Rules?\n<\/p>\n
\tTo answer the aforesaid question, it is essential to make
\na quick survey of a few Sections of the Act namely the National
\nCadets Corps Act, 1948 (Act 31 of 1948) (in short `the Act’)
\nand the Rules framed thereunder.    Section 2 deals with the
\ndefinition of Corps. It says “corps” mans the National Cadet
\nCorps constituted under this Act.  Section 3 deals with the
\n“Constitution of the National Cadet Corps”.  Section 4
\ndeals with the “Constitution and disbandment of units” and
\nprovides: “The Central Government may constitute in any
\n[State] one or more units of the Corps members of which shall
\nbe recruited from amongst the students of any university or
\nschool, and may disband or reconstitute any unit so
\nconstituted.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 9 deals with the “Appointment of officers.”  It
\nreads, “The Central Government may provide for the
\nappointment of officers in or for any unit of the Corps either
\nfrom amongst members of the staff of any university or school
\nor otherwise and may prescribe the duties, powers and
\nfunctions of such officers.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAt this stage, we may dispose of the principal contention
\nof Mr. G.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent.  He strenuously urged that Section 9 of the Act
\ndeals with the source of appointment of the officers.  It is his
\ncontention that the appointment of the respondent to the NCC
\nstreams from the source of Section 9 and it cannot be said
\nthat the appointment of the respondent is made under the
\nexecutive order in exercise of proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the
\nRules.  This contention deserves to be rejected for more than
\none reason.  Firstly, the respondent accepted the appointment
\nunder the memorandum issued by the Government of India
\nand the Scheme framed thereunder with its terms and
\nconditions categorically laid down thereunder, without any
\ndemur.  Secondly, it was never the case of the respondent that
\nhe was appointed under the Act, more particularly under
\nSection 9 of the Act.  Thirdly, Section 9 provides for
\nappointment of officers in or any unit of the corps either from
\namongst the members of the staff of any university or school
\nor otherwise.  Mr. G.D. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
\nthe respondent strenuously urged that the words, ‘or
\notherwise’ is relatable to the appointment from outside other
\nthan staff of any university or school.  This is a misreading of
\nthe Section.  The Scheme of the Act would go to show that the
\nappointment of officers as provided under Section 9 of the Act
\nis from amongst the members of the corps.  Section 9, thus
\nread with the scheme of the Act, would mean that the word
\n‘otherwise’ employed in Section 9 of the Act is relatable to any
\nmembers of the corps other than staff of any university or
\nschool.  Even a student who is a member of the corps could be
\nappointed.  In the present case, it is not disputed that the
\nrespondent was not a member of the corps.  It is also clear
\nthat his appointment was not made in terms of the provision
\nof Section 9 of the Act.      Fourthly, the Office Memorandum
\nand the Scheme, under which the respondent was appointed
\nwas never challenged by him.  Fifthly, the respondent has
\naccepted the appointment under the Scheme with the terms
\nand conditions without any demur and it does not lie in his
\nmouth to say that he was not appointed under Scheme but
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Scheme under which the respondent was appointed
\nwas a composite Scheme laying down the terms and
\nconditions of the Scheme and the conditions of service.  The
\ncomposite Scheme was framed under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of
\nthe Rules, by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence
\nletter of 21.12.1963.  Appendix `A’ deals, amongst others, with
\nthe age of the applicant.  It reads:\n<\/p>\n
“(iii) Age on date of application should not be less
\nthan 21 and not more than 51 years.”\n<\/p>\n
Clause 4 of the Appendix A reads:\n<\/p>\n
“4.\tOfficers will ordinarily hold commission until
\nreaching an age of 55 years.  An officer may be
\ndischarged earlier if his\/her services are not
\nrequired.”\n<\/p>\n
Appendix ‘B’ appended to the Government order deals
\nwith the terms and conditions of officers granted NCC
\nCommission.  Clause 4 of Appendix ‘B’ deals with ‘Tenure’.  It
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
“4. \tThe normal tenure of appointment for those
\nofficers who are retained beyond the probationary
\nperiod will be three years extendable by three years
\nat a time for so long as their services are required
\nbut not beyond the age of 55 years.  Their services
\nmay be terminated at any time before the
\ncompletion of the initial or extended tenure at the
\ndiscretion of the Government of India in terms of
\nthe NCC Act and Rules framed thereunder from
\ntime to time.”\n<\/p>\n
In terms of the aforesaid Scheme, the application form
\nwas also annexed as annexure to Appendix ‘A’.  The title reads:
\n“Application for appointment as an officer under proviso\n<\/p>\n
(iii) to Rule 16 of NCC Rules.”  Amongst others, the
\napplication was to be filled up giving particulars regarding No.,
\nRank, Name in full, Arm\/Service and Unit, stating formation
\nand command under which serving and Date of Commission
\netc.   The application form was issued under proviso (iii) to
\nRule 16 of the Rules.  The respondent, knowing the terms and
\nconditions stipulated therein, had filled up the application
\nform.\n<\/p>\n
Another unimpeachable document is the letter dated
\n19.9.1969 under the heading “Grant of NCC Commission”
\naddressed to the respondent.  The said letter also referred to
\nthe order dated 21.12.1963 and the Scheme framed
\nthereunder under proviso (iii) to Rule 16 of the Rules.  The
\nletter has referred to the terms and conditions laid down in
\nAnnexure ‘A’.  Para 5 of the letter reads:
\n“Please intimate your acceptance of the terms and
\nconditions of service as mentioned above earliest.  If
\nno reply is received from you by 10 Oct. 69, it will
\nbe assumed that you are not interested in the grant
\nof NCC Commission and your case will be treated as
\nclosed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe offer letter of 19.9.1969 with the terms and
\nconditions was accepted by the respondent by its letter dated
\n13.10.1969.  The letter reads:\n<\/p>\n
“From Capt. B.D. Tripathi\t\tGROUP CENTRE
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   Central Reserve Police
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   AVADI-MADRAS-SS
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   13 October 1969<\/p>\n
To
\n\tThe Director General
\n\tNCC, New Delhi<\/p>\n
\tSUB: GRANT OF NCC COMMISSION<\/p>\n
\tRef: Your     No. 5431\/EC-57159\/83\/NCC\/
\n\t\t\t    COORD(o) dated 08 October 1969<\/p>\n
Sir,
\n\tWith due respect I beg to inform you that the
\nterms and conditions of NCC Commission are
\naccepted as asked for, under para 5 of your letter of
\neven No. dated 19 September 1969.\n<\/p>\n
\tYou are further requested to send to me offer
\nof appointment alongwith the R\/W at the above
\naddress and give me sufficient time to join as I have
\nto submit one month notice to CRP before joining
\nNCC.\n<\/p>\n
\tThanking you
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tYours faithfully,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t(B.D. Tripathi)”\n<\/p>\n
In somewhat similar case in Union of India and
\nAnother v. Lt. Col. Komal Charan and Ors.<\/a> 1992 Supp (3)
\nSCC 186, this Court held the respondents having exercised
\ntheir option and were accordingly granted whole time NCC
\nCommission, they now cannot repudiate the same and claim
\nany additional benefit.  This is what this Court say at SCC
\npage 189 :-\n<\/p>\n
“7. In view of our conclusion above we do not
\nconsider it necessary to refer to the other provisions
\nof the N.C.C. Act relied upon by Mr. Mukhoty, and
\nwe do not consider it either necessary or relevant to
\nexamine the question whether the Army Act applies
\nto the respondents or not. In support of these
\nappeals the Additional Solicitor General has not
\nplaced any reliance on the Army Act and his
\ncontention has been that the provisions of the
\nNational Cadet Corps Act, 1948, the rules framed
\nthereunder and the letter dated 23.05.80 in
\npursuance of which the respondents were granted
\npermanent commission, settled the question. The
\nCorps has been established under Section 3 of the
\nN.C.C. Act. Section 9 of the Act authorises the
\nCentral Government to provide for the appointment
\nof officers from amongst the members of the staff
\nand university or school or otherwise. Section 13 of
\nthe Act authorises the Central Government to make
\nrules to carry out the objects of the Act and without
\nprejudice to the generality of this power to lay down
\nthe manner in which and the conditions subject to
\nwhich a person or class of persons may be enrolled
\nunder the Act. Accordingly the Rules described as
\nNational Cadet Corps Rules, 1948 were framed.
\nProviso (iii) in Rule 16 vests the authority concerned
\nwith very wide power in this regard. Except for
\nFundamental Rule 56(a) relied upon in the
\nimpugned judgment, it has not been suggested on
\nbehalf of the respondents that they are entitled to
\ncontinue in service upto the age of fifty-eight years
\non the strength of any other provision. The Central
\nGovernment has, therefore, full authority to appoint
\npersons on such terms and conditions as it may
\nchoose to prescribe. The question of grant of
\npermanent commission to N.C.C. officers employed
\non whole-time basis was considered in all the
\nrelevant aspects and a decision was taken as
\nmentioned in the afore-mentioned letter dated
\n23.05.80 and referred to in the letter of 24.05.80
\nsent under the signature of the Under Secretary to
\nthe Government of India to the Director General,
\nN.C.C., New Delhi (Annexure P-4). It was considered
\ndesirable that before a person was granted N.C.C.
\npermanent commission in terms of the above letter
\nan opportunity should be given to him to consider
\nthe terms and conditions of the appointment and
\nthen indicate his choice by exercising his option in
\nthe form prescribed in Appendix B to the letter. The
\nrelevant order in clear terms lays down the age of
\nsuperannuation at fifty-five years with a further
\nprovision of extension to the age of fifty-seven years.
\nThe respondents exercised their option and were
\naccordingly granted whole-time N.C.C. commission.
\nThey cannot now repudiate the same and claim any
\nadditional benefit which they are not entitled to
\nunder any rule or law.”\n<\/p>\n
National Cadet Corps Rules 1963 (in short ‘the Rules)
\nwere framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers
\nconferred by Section 13 of the NCC of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tPart IV of the Rules deals with the “Appointment of
\nOfficers.”  Rule 16 of the Rules under Part IV deals with the
\n“Qualifications for appointments”.  Proviso (iii) to Rule 16,
\nwhich empowers the Government of India for appointment of
\nany person who is not qualified for appointment under the
\nRules reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(iii) the Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
\nmay authorise the appointment of any person who
\nis not qualified for appointment under the rule.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt, therefore, clearly appears that proviso (iii) to Rule 16 is
\ncarved out from the Rules authorizing the Ministry of Defence,
\nGovernment of India for appointment of any person who is not
\nqualified for appointment under the Rules.  It must be grasped
\nthat throughout the NCC Act and Rules, there is absolutely no
\nprovision for appointment of discharged Short Commission
\nOfficer as an officer of the NCC.  It is only to rehabilitate the
\nShort Commission Officers, who had been discharged after the
\nhostility ended, that a provision had been made in proviso (iii)
\nof Rule 16 empowering the Government for such appointment
\nwho were not otherwise qualified for the appointment under
\nthe Rules.  As noticed earlier, the Government Order dated
\n21.12.1963 was in exercise of the powers under proviso (iii) to
\nRule 16.    The respondent has not challenged the Government
\nCircular dated 21.12.1963.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
\nthat the respondent was appointed under the NCC Act and
\nRules and he would be entitled to continue in the post till he
\nattained the age of 45 years is mis-conceived.  It was to the
\nknowledge of the respondent himself that he was appointed
\nunder the composite Scheme framed in exercise of the power
\nunder proviso (iii) to Rule 16.  Under the Scheme, the
\nappointment was a tenure appointment and the service was
\nfor three years extendable by another three years at a time,
\nsubject to the requirement of the service but not beyond the
\nage of 55 years.  His service might also be terminated at any
\ntime before the completion of the initial  or extended tenure at
\nthe discretion of the Government of India in terms of Clause 4
\nof Appendix B of the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\tFurther, it needs to be noticed that the service of the
\nrespondent was extended from time to time.  The service of the
\nrespondent was extended by an order dated 19.10.1971 along
\nwith  other officers mentioned in Appendix ‘A’.  The name of
\nLt. B.D. Tripathi appears at Sl. No. 70 and his service was
\nextended from 11.12.1971 to 10.12.1972.  The last extension
\nwas granted by an order dated 15.12.1978.  At Sl. No. 87,
\nservice of Capt. B.D. Tripathi is shown to have been extended
\nfrom 11.12.1978 to 10.12.1979.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese unimpeachable documents on record will clearly
\nshow that it was to the knowledge of the respondent himself
\nthat his appointment was a tenure appointment, extendable
\nfrom time to time.  He has not raised any grievance against
\nthis before any authority.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts as adumbrated above will clearly show that the
\nappointment of the respondent was a tenure appointment
\npursuant to the Scheme devised under proviso (iii) to Rule 16
\nof the Rules.  There is no provision under the NCC Rules and
\nAct providing for appointment of discharged Short Service
\nCommission Officer as an officer in the NCC, save and except,
\nas provided by the Scheme floated under proviso (iii) to Rule\n<\/p>\n
16.
\n\tFor the reasons aforestated, the impugned order of the
\nHigh Court dated 19th February 2003 and the order dated 14th
\nJuly, 1997 passed by the Tribunal are set aside.  The T.A. No.
\n551 of 1987, filed by the respondent, stands dismissed.
\nThe appeal is allowed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006 Author: J H.K.Sema Bench: H. K. Sema, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5750 of 2005 PETITIONER: Union of India & Ors RESPONDENT: Brahma Dutt Tripathi DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/2006 BENCH: H. K. SEMA & D.K. JAIN JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-07T17:10:35+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-07T17:10:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2768,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-07T17:10:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 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:\/\/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":"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-07T17:10:35+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-07T17:10:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006"},"wordCount":2768,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-07T17:10:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-brahma-dutt-tripathi-on-18-september-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Brahma Dutt Tripathi on 18 September, 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:\/\/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\/94147","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=94147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}