Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus PRATAP SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
14 December 1994
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S. MOHAN, N. VENKATACHALA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 626 · 1994 INSC 606

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

We have heard counsel for the parties. In the proceedings of the Ministry of Defence letter bearing No.B/19231/0rganisation 4 (Civil) (d) 256-S/D (Civil -II) dated December 20, 1985, the President of India directed thijt the civilian employees who participated in 'Blue Star' and 'Wood Rose' operations be paid ration allowance. The order reads thus : "the President is pleased to decide that ration allowance in lieu of free rations will be admissible retrospectively to the entitled categories of the Defence civilian employees deployed in connection with 'Operation Blue Star' and 'Operation Wood Rose' from the dates mentioned thereunder namely 'Operation Blue Star' between June l, 1984 to July.23, 1985 and 'Operation Wood Rose' from June l, 1984 to February 28, 1985." The question is whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of ration allowance in lieu of free ration. It is now conceded across the bar that such of those civilian employees who participated in those operations are entitled to ration allowance in lieu of free ration. Such of these civilian working in ordinance factories are the entitled category and it is not disputed that they had drawn the free rations. Having drawn the free ration they are not entitled to ration allowance payable since it was only in lieu of the latter. Such of these civilians employees who are not entitled categories are not eligible to free ration. The order quoted earlier was made applicable only to such of these entitled civilians working in defence for free rations and free ration allowance was given in lieu of free ration as they were not drawn while in operation. The non entitled categories, therefore, are not entitled to claim the ration allowance. Under these circumstances the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh was wholly unjustified in granting the benefit of free ration allowance to the respondents by its order dated May 18, 1992.

pp. 626–627, margin G

These appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

p. 627, margin E