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 ORS. versus SMT. V.P. PARUKUTTY

Decided
29 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 383 · 1996 INSC 1415
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

p. 383, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court made on 30.11.1990 in Writ Appeal No.767/88 reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge.

p. 383, margin G

The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as an agent in the National Savings Scheme called Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana as per order dated 7th August, 1976 under which the respondent was working as an agent. The agency was terminated by order dated 2.8.1994 on the ground that the respondent is a near relation to the employee working in the Post Office (brother) and, therefore, agency was not validly created. The respondent challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the High Court and also the circular dated 5.12.1981 on the basis of which the said order was passed. The circular was challenged on the ground that it was discriminatory and arbitrary. The High court found that the circular was neither discriminatory and arbitrary. The High Court found that the circular was neither discriminatory nor arbitrary and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the \'irder passed by the learned single Judge, the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal. We are clearly of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench that mere existence of near relations in the division is not enough for terminating the agency is not correct, in view of the clear policy of the Government and the Government instruc- !ions directing that no near relations, namely, legitimate child, or stepchild, father/step-father, mother/step-mother, husband, brother/step-brother, sister/step-sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, as defined under the scheme, should be appointed as an agent at the place of work by the post-master. But as the respondent has been working right from 1976 and as no clear finding has been recorded by the authority establishing breach of the said instructions, we do not think that this is a case warranting interference. It will be open to appellants to have the post-master transferred to 'l"Y other place. Though we find that the view taken by the High Court is nllt correct, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, the appointmen! of respondent is not disturbed.

pp. 383–384, margin G

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

p. 384, margin F