{"id":122177,"date":"2009-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-25T06:33:25","modified_gmt":"2016-07-25T01:03:25","slug":"achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009<\/div>\n
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                Civil Writ Petition No.7778 of 2007\n                                       Date of Decision: July 06, 2009\n\n\nAchhru Ram\n                                                     .....PETITIONER(S)\n\n                                VERSUS\n\n\nState of Punjab & Others\n                                                    .....RESPONDENT(S)<\/pre>\n
                            .      .     .\n\n\nCORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA\n\n\nPRESENT: -      Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the\n                petitioner.\n\n                Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy\n<\/pre>\n
                Advocate General, Punjab, for the
\n                respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                            .      .     .\n<\/p>\n
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)<\/p>\n
                Achhru Ram son of Thakur Mal has<\/p>\n
filed    this   civil      writ        petition      under    Article<\/p>\n
226\/227 of the Constitution of India praying for<\/p>\n
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari<\/p>\n
quashing orders dated 18.3.2005 (Annexure                           P-6)<\/p>\n
and   17.10.2006       (Annexure        P-8)       under    which    the<\/p>\n
respondents     have       denied            the    claim     of     the<\/p>\n
petitioner for grant of benefit under the Assured<\/p>\n
Career    Progression           Scheme        (for     short,       `ACP<\/p>\n
Scheme’). Prayer has also been made for issuance
\n CWP No.7778 of 2007                                     [2]<\/p>\n
of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the<\/p>\n
respondents           to    consider       the    claim        of     the<\/p>\n
petitioner for grant of benefits under the ACP<\/p>\n
Scheme in the light of Order dated 29.12.2005<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-7).\n<\/p>\n
                      The   contentions         addressed      by     the<\/p>\n
learned      counsel        for     the    petitioner         and     the<\/p>\n
pleadings bring out the facts that the petitioner<\/p>\n
joined as Assistant Treasurer in the year 1976 on<\/p>\n
adhoc basis. His services were regularised w.e.f.<\/p>\n
30.9.1980      as     Assistant         Treasurer.      It    has   been<\/p>\n
pointed out that a punishment of stoppage of one<\/p>\n
increment without cumulative effect was imposed<\/p>\n
on    the     petitioner           in     the    year       1986.     The<\/p>\n
petitioner impugned the said punishment, however,<\/p>\n
the Civil Court upheld the punishment. Be that as<\/p>\n
it may, the effect of the punishment ceased in<\/p>\n
the year 1987.\n<\/p>\n
                      Learned counsel contends that the<\/p>\n
petitioner became entitled to an increment under<\/p>\n
the    ACP    Scheme        on    completion      of    8     years   of<\/p>\n
service. The case of the petitioner for grant of<\/p>\n
benefit under the ACP Scheme was considered by<\/p>\n
the    respondents           and    service       record       of     the<\/p>\n
petitioner was summoned. The Treasury Officer,<\/p>\n
Samana, vide Memo dated 17.12.1993 reported to<\/p>\n
the District Treasury Officer, Patiala, that the
\n CWP No.7778 of 2007                                            [3]<\/p>\n
work     and      conduct                  of    the      petitioner        was<\/p>\n
satisfactory. In this regard, learned counsel has<\/p>\n
referred to Annexure P-1.\n<\/p>\n
                      The       pleadings              indicate      that       a\n\ncomplaint       was         made   against          the     petitioner      and\n\nafter      conducting                  a        departmental         enquiry,\n\n<\/pre>\n
punishment of stoppage of one increment without<\/p>\n
cumulative effect was also imposed in the year<\/p>\n
1994.\n<\/p>\n
                      The Director (Treasury & Accounts)<\/p>\n
Finance     Department,                Punjab,      vide     Communication<\/p>\n
dated 27.10.1997 informed the petitioner about<\/p>\n
adverse remarks for the year 1996-97 recorded in<\/p>\n
the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
The     remarks        alleged             “angry      nature,       lack    in<\/p>\n
socialisation and bad handwriting”. An appeal was<\/p>\n
filed     by    the         petitioner            against     the     adverse<\/p>\n
remarks which however was dismissed.<\/p>\n
                      The          petitioner               made      several<\/p>\n
representations for grant of benefit under the<\/p>\n
ACP Scheme which, however, was not granted.<\/p>\n
                      A perusal of Annexure P-4 indicates<\/p>\n
that     the     Finance           Department,              Government       of<\/p>\n
Punjab,        addressed           a       letter      to    the     District<\/p>\n
Treasury Officer, Sangrur. The contents read as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
                      “2.    The promotion case of Shri Achhru Ram, Assistant
\n CWP No.7778 of 2007                                              [4]<\/p>\n
                      Treasurer was re-examined on his application dated
\n                      16.6.2001 and he was also called for personal hearing on
\n                      7.8.2001. Since his service record is not good, therefore,
\n                      he is not found fit for promotion and his application dated
\n                      16.6.2001 is rejected. The employee may be informed in
\n                      this regard in hand-writing.”\n<\/p>\n
                      It seems that the petitioner kept<\/p>\n
on representing for his claim under ACP Scheme.<\/p>\n
Impugned order, Annexure P-6, in that regard has<\/p>\n
been    issued,        a    copy      whereof         was     sent      to     the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Under Annexure P-6, dated 18.3.2005,<\/p>\n
the petitioner has been informed that his case<\/p>\n
for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme has<\/p>\n
been    re-examined           in    the      context        of     Government<\/p>\n
Instructions dated 25.9.1998 and 10.1.2000 and<\/p>\n
other instructions\/ advices received from time to<\/p>\n
time on the subject. On the basis of record of<\/p>\n
service of the petitioner, he was not found to be<\/p>\n
eligible for benefit under the ACP Scheme.<\/p>\n
                      Under Annexure P-8, it seems that<\/p>\n
while considering the case of the petitioner for<\/p>\n
grant of benefits as claimed by him, reference<\/p>\n
has    been    made        to      Order      dated       18.3.2005          i.e.<\/p>\n
Annexure P-6.\n<\/p>\n
                      Learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
contends that the petitioner was promoted in the<\/p>\n
year 2004 and therefore, the respondents cannot<\/p>\n
claim that his record did not entitle him to the<\/p>\n
grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme.<\/p>\n
                      Learned counsel for the respondent-\n<\/p>\n
 CWP No.7778 of 2007                                           [5]<\/p>\n
State has referred to the contents of Para 3 of<\/p>\n
the    reply        (preliminary              objections).             Learned<\/p>\n
counsel      has      drawn       the    attention         of       the    Court<\/p>\n
towards the extract of Instructions adopted by<\/p>\n
the State of Punjab in the context of the claim<\/p>\n
of     the         petitioner.             While          referring            to<\/p>\n
Instructions dated 1.12.1988, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the    respondent-State                 has    contended            that     “in<\/p>\n
adjudging      the       suitability           for     the      proficiency<\/p>\n
step up(s), the procedure for assessing the work<\/p>\n
and conduct to be satisfactory as applicable to<\/p>\n
the case of promotion, shall be followed and it<\/p>\n
shall be given only if the employee is found<\/p>\n
suitable for the same. An employee who is not<\/p>\n
considered fit for proficiency step-up that is<\/p>\n
whose assessment of work and conduct is below the<\/p>\n
requisite standard, shall not be given additional<\/p>\n
increment(s), his regular increment if otherwise<\/p>\n
shall be released as usual”.\n<\/p>\n
                      Learned counsel has also referred<\/p>\n
to    the   Instructions            issued       on    25.9.1998.           Para<\/p>\n
4(i) of the said Instructions reads as under:-<\/p>\n
                      Para 4(i)<\/p>\n
                           “Placement in higher scale and proficiency step-up
\n                           under this policy shall be granted only to those
\n                           employees whose overall service record is adjudged
\n                           as \u201eGood\u201f if a departmental test is prescribed or
\n                           acquisition of higher level, then only those employee
\n                           who clear text or acquire qualification would be
\n                           eligible for benefits under this scheme.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 CWP No.7778 of 2007                                            [6]\n\n\n\n                      Extract          of         Instructions             dated\n\n10.1.2000 reads as under:-\n\n<\/pre>\n
                      “Doubts has been expressed by some quarters about the
\n                      term overall service record is adjudged as \u201eGood\u201f and
\n                      have sought clarification above this term.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             This matter has been considered in consultation with
\n                      the Department of Finance and it is clarified that the term
\n                      overall service record is adjudged as \u201eGood\u201f will that 50%
\n                      reports should be \u201eGood\u201f & above including two of the
\n                      last three reports. The rest of the reports should be\/may
\n                      satisfactory.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      Learned        counsel         has      supplied,         in<\/p>\n
Court, the Resume of Annual Confidential Reports<\/p>\n
of the petitioner to contend that by considering<\/p>\n
the work and conduct of the petitioner during his<\/p>\n
service from 1980-81 till 1998-99, it can safely<\/p>\n
be concluded that the petitioner could not have<\/p>\n
been promoted. Further, considering the criteria<\/p>\n
as    laid      down         under          the      instructions              and<\/p>\n
clarification referred to above, the petitioner<\/p>\n
could not be granted the relief under that ACP<\/p>\n
Scheme if the overall record of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
considered for the given period.<\/p>\n
                      I have considered the contentions<\/p>\n
of learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
                      The      resume\/precis             of     the      Annual<\/p>\n
Confidential Reports in respect of the petitioner<\/p>\n
is required to be considered for adjudicating the<\/p>\n
issue, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 RESUME OF ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORT IN
\n                 RESPECT OF SHRI ACHHRU RAM ASSISTANT
\n                 TREASURER S\/O SHRI THAKUR MAL
\n CWP No.7778 of 2007                                             [7]<\/p>\n
                 Sr. No. Period of      Overall                Remarks, if any
\n                          Report      Assessment\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   1. 1980-81        Average\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   2. 1981-82        Average\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   3. 1982-83        Average\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   4. 1983-84        Average\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   5. 1984-85        Average\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   6. 1985-86        Average\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   7. 1986-87        Average\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   8. 1987-88        Average       One     increment   stopped  without
\n                                                   cumulative effect by DTO vide orders
\n                                                   dated 24-2-1987.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   9.   1988-89      Average\n                  10.   1989-90      Good\n                  11.   1990-91      Good\n                  12.   1991-92      Average\n                  13.   1992-93      Average\n                  14.   1993-94      Average\n                  15.   1994-95      Good\n                  16.   1995-96      Good\n<\/pre>\n
                  17.                              Stopped one annual increment without
\n                                                   cumulative effect vide orders dated
\n                                                   21-4-1997.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  18.   1996-97      Below Average\n\n\n                  19.   1997-98      Average\n                  20.   1998-99      Average\n                  21.   1999-2000    Good\n                  22.   2000-2001    Good\n                  23.   2001-2002    Good\n                  24.   2002-2003    Good\n                  25.   2003-2004    Good\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                      Perusal of the precis of the Annual<\/p>\n
Confidential Reports indicates that from 1980-81<\/p>\n
till    1988-89,        the       overall          assessment            of     the<\/p>\n
petitioner remained ‘Average’. Thereafter, from<\/p>\n
1991-92 till 1993-94, it has been recorded as<\/p>\n
‘Average’, and further from 1997-98 to 1998-99,<\/p>\n
the overall assessment of the petitioner has been<\/p>\n
recorded as `Average’.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      For    1996-97,            the      petitioner            has<\/p>\n
been assessed ‘Below Average’.\n<\/p>\n
                      For the intervening 4 years only,<\/p>\n
the petitioner had earned ‘Good’ reports.<\/p>\n
                      I also find that the petitioner was
\n CWP No.7778 of 2007                                     [8]<\/p>\n
promoted        in    the   year    2004,    possibly          for    the<\/p>\n
reason      that        after      1999-2000,          the      overall<\/p>\n
assessment       of     the    petitioner        was   recorded        as<\/p>\n
‘Good’.\n<\/p>\n
                      I have also taken into account the<\/p>\n
fact that during the given relevant period for<\/p>\n
which the claim has been made, the petitioner had<\/p>\n
been punished twice.\n<\/p>\n
                      Learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
in these circumstances, has not been able to show<\/p>\n
that the case of the petitioner was covered under<\/p>\n
the   Instructions\/           clarification        issued       by    the<\/p>\n
Government of Punjab from time to time which have<\/p>\n
been extracted above, from the written statement.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel has not been able to show that<\/p>\n
infact the petitioner had good reports so as to<\/p>\n
entitle him to the benefits under the ACP Scheme.<\/p>\n
The promotion of the petitioner in 2004 is dehors<\/p>\n
the controversy as it relates to a subsequent<\/p>\n
period and has been granted on the basis of later<\/p>\n
`good’ reports.\n<\/p>\n
                      The     Instructions       have         not    been<\/p>\n
challenged in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
                      In view of the above, considering<\/p>\n
the record of the petitioner, I do not find any<\/p>\n
ground     to    allow      the    claim    of   the     petitioner.<\/p>\n
Further, considering the record of the petitioner
\n CWP No.7778 of 2007                          [9]<\/p>\n
for the relevant period in the context of the<\/p>\n
instructions applicable in that regard to which<\/p>\n
reference has been made hereinabove, the decision<\/p>\n
of respondents in not granting benefit under ACP<\/p>\n
Scheme cannot be termed as unreasonable. Under<\/p>\n
the circumstances, orders Annexure P-6 and P-8 do<\/p>\n
not call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n
                      The petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                              (AJAI LAMBA)\nJuly 06, 2009                                    JUDGE\navin\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7778 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 06, 2009 Achhru Ram …..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …..RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122177","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAchhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - 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\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-25T01:03:25+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T01:03:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1478,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T01:03:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - 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\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-25T01:03:25+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T01:03:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009"},"wordCount":1478,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","name":"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T01:03:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/achhru-ram-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Achhru Ram vs State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/122177","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=122177"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122177\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122177"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122177"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122177"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}