{"id":145471,"date":"1976-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976"},"modified":"2017-12-03T18:57:45","modified_gmt":"2017-12-03T13:27:45","slug":"state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & … on 7 May, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & … on 7 May, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1841, \t\t 1976 SCR 603<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF HARYANA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDER PRAKASH ANAND H.C.S. & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/05\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1841\t\t  1976 SCR  603\n 1976 SCC  (2) 977\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1976 SC2490\t (24,25)\n RF\t    1977 SC2328\t (14)\n R\t    1979 SC 193\t (39)\n R\t    1979 SC 478\t (152)\n R\t    1986 SC1814\t (8)\n R\t    1988 SC1388\t (16)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution  of\tIndia  [950]   Art.   235-Power\t  to\ncompulsorily retire-Whether  vests  in\tthe  High  Court  or\nGovernor- Control, nature and scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent was officiating as Additional District &\nSessions Judge.\t On a reference to the High Court whether he\nshould be  retained in\tservice till the age of 58 or should\nbe retired at the age of 55, the High Court recemmended that\nhe should  be reverted\tto his\tsubstantive post  of  Senior\nSubordinate Judge  but that he should be allowed to continue\nin that\t post till  the age  of\t 58.  The  State  Government\nreverted him  but retired  him from  service at\t 55 under r.\n5.32(c) Punjab\tCivil Service  Rules. The rule states that a\nretiring pension  is granted  to a Government servant who is\nretired by  the appointing  authority on or after he attains\nthe age\t of 55 by giving him 3 months notice. The High Court\nquashed the order of retirement.\n     Dismissing the appeal to this Court.\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tArticle 235  vests in the High Court control\nover district  court   and courts  subordinate thereto.\t The\ncontrol\t includes   both  disciplinary\t and  administrative\njurisdiction.  Disciplinary   control\tmeans\tnot   merely\njurisdiction award  punishment for  misconduct, but also the\npower to  determine whether  the record\t of   member of\t the\nservice is  satisfactory or  not so  as to  entitle  him  to\ncontinue in  service for.  the full term till he attains the\nage   of   superannuation.   Administrative   judicial\t and\ndisciplinary control over members of the judicial service is\nvested solely  in the  High Court.  Premature retirement  is\nmade in\t the exercise  of  administrative  and\tdisciplinary\njurisdiction. It  is administrative because it is decided in\npublic\tinterest   to  retire  him  prematurely\t and  it  is\ndisciplinary, because,\tthe  decision  is  taken  in  public\ninterest that  he does\tnot deserve  to continue  up to\t the\nnormal age  of superannuation.\tThe fixation  of the  age of\nsuperannuation is  the right  of the  State Government.\t The\ncurtailment  of\t  that\tperiod\tunder  rules  governing\t the\nconditions service  is a  matter pertaining  to disciplinary\ncontrol as  well as  administrative control.  [605G-H: 606H-\n607C]\n     State of  West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi<\/a> [1966] 1\nS.C.R. 771  and High  Court of\tPunjab and  Haryana etc.  v.\nState of  Haryana (Sub\tnom Narerdra  Singh  Rao)  [1975]  3\nS.C.R. 365, followed.\n     (2) The  control which  is vested\tin the High Court is\ncomplete control  subject only\tto the power of the Governor\nin  the\t  matter  of   appointment,  dismissal,\t removal  or\nreduction in  rank and\tthe initial  posting of\t and initial\npromotion  to  District\t Judges.  The  vesting\tof  complete\ncontrol over  the subordinate  judiciary in  the High Court,\nleads to  this that  if the  High Court is of opinion that a\nparticular officer is not fit to be retained in service, the\nHigh Court  will communicate  that opinion  to the Governor,\nbecause, the Governor is the authority to dismiss, remove or\nreduce in  rank or terminate the appointment. In such cases,\nthe Governor,  as the head of the State, will act in harmony\nwith the  recommendation of  the High Court as otherwise the\nconsequence will be unfortunate. [605H 606A-G. H: 607E-F]\n     (3) But,  compulsory retirement  simpliciter  does\t not\namount to  dismissal or\t removal or  reduction in rank under\nArticle 311  or under  service rules.  When a case is not of\nremoval or  dismissal or  reduction in\trank, any  order  in\nrespect of exercise of control over the judicial officers is\nby the\tHigh Court  and by no other authority; otherwise, it\nwill affect the independence of the judiciary. [605F-G;]\n604\n     Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1955] 1 S.C.R. 26;\nDalip Singh v.State of Punjab [1961] 1 S.C.R. 88; Tara Singh\nv. State  of Rajasthan [1975] 4 S.C.C.86; B. Venkateswararao\nNaidu v.  Union of  India [1973]  1. S.C.C. 361 and Shamsher\nSingh &\t Anr. v.  State\t of  Punjab  [1975]  1\tS.C.R.\t814,\nfollowed:\n     (4) It  is not correct to contend that the Governor and\nnot the\t High Court  has the  power  to\t retire\t a  judicial\nofficer compulsorily under s. 14 Punjab General Clauses Act.\nThe suggestion\tthat the High Court recommends and the State\nGovernment implements  the recommendation  in the  matter of\ncompulsory retirement  is to destroy the control of the High\nCourt. It is only the order terminating the appointment of a\nmember of  the service\totherwise than upon his reaching the\nage of\tsuperannuation that  will be  passed  by  the  State\nGovernment on  the recommendation of the High Court.[606C-D,\nG-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2454 of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  the 18th December,
\n1971 of\t the Punjab  and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in
\nCivil Writ Petition No. 2604 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     L.\t N.  Sinha,  Solicitor\tGeneral,Naunit\tLal,  R.  N.
\nSachthey for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Anand Swarup, Harbans Singh Marwah for Respondent No.2.
\n     Ashok Grover; for Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
\n     RAY, C.J.\tThis  appeal  is  by  certificate  from\t the
\njudgment dated\t18 November,  1971 of the Punjab and Haryana
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The  respondent   joined  the   Punjab  Civil  Service,
\n(Executive Branch)  in November,  1954. He  was selected for
\nthe Judicial  Branch of the Punjab Civil Service on or about
\n1  May,1965.  On  15  November,\t 1968  he  was\tpromoted  as
\nofficiating Additional District and Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent was due to attain the age of 55 years on
\n24 February,  1971. His\t case was referred to the High Court
\nfor  their  recommendation  whether  the  respondent  should
\nretire at  the age  of 55  years or he should be retained in
\nservice till the age of 58 years which is the prescribed age
\nof superannuation under the Punjab Civil Service Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court was  of opinion  that the\twork of\t the
\nrespondent as Additional District and Sessions Judge was not
\nsatisfactory. The  High Court  was not inclined to recommend
\nthe respondent’s continuance in Superior Judicial Service up
\nto the\tage of 58 years. The High Court recommended that the
\nrespondent should  be reverted\tto his\tsubstantive post  of
\nSenior Subordinate  Judge\/Chief Judicial Magistrate and that
\nhe might  be allowed  to continue in service till the age of
\n58 years.\n<\/p>\n
     The State Government agreed with the recommendation for
\nreverting  the\t respondent  from  the\tpost  of  Additional
\nDistrict  and  Sessions\t Judge\tto  the\t Senior\t Subordinate
\nJudge\/Chief  Judicial\tMagistrate.  With   regard  to\t the
\nretention of the respondent in service up to the age of 58
\n605<\/span>
\nyears the  State again\tasked the  High\t Court\tto  consider
\nwhether in  view of  the  respondent’s\twork  as  Additional
\nDistrict and Sessions Judge, Hissar, having been found to be
\nunsatisfactory, the  respondent should be retained at all in
\nservice beyond\tthe age\t of 55\tyears. The  State Government
\nsuggested that\tit was\tin public  interest  to\t retire\t the
\nrespondent at  the age\tof 55  years. The High Court did not
\nagree with  the suggestion.  By letter dated 16 August, 1971
\nthe High Court reiterated that the respondent might continue
\nin service  up to  the age of 58 years. The State Government
\ndid not\t agree with the recommendation of the High Court and
\ndecided to  retire the respondent under Rule 5.32 (c) of the
\nPunjab Civil  Service Rules.  A notice\twas  issued  to\t the
\nrespondent on  20 August,  1971 giving\thim notice  of three
\nmonths on the expiry of which he would retire from service.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  filed a writ petition in the High Court
\nimpeaching the\tnotice dated  20 August 1971. The matter was
\nheard by a Bench of three learned Judges. The order retiring
\nthe respondent\tfrom service  was quashed  by  the  majority
\nopinion.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  is whether  the  State  Government  could
\ncompulsorily retire  a Senior  Subordinate Judge  cum  Chief
\nJudicial Magistrate  under rule 5.32 (c) of the Punjab Civil
\nService Rules against the recommendation of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh held
\nthat compulsory\t retirement does  not involve  stigma or any
\nimplication of\tmis-behaviour or  incapacity. In Dalip Singh
\nv. State of Punjab<\/a> this Court held that in order to find out
\nwhether an  order of  compulsory retirement  is or is not by
\nway of\tpunishment, is\tto find\t out  whether  a  charge  of
\nimputation against  the officer\t is made  the basis  of\t the
\nexercise of power and second whether the officer is deprived
\nof any benefit already earned.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  recent decision  in  Tara\tSingh  v.  State  of
\nRajasthan this\tCourt held that compulsory retirement is not
\na punishment  because the officer does not lose the terminal
\nbenefits already  earned by him. In B. Venkateswararao Naidu
\nv. Union of India this Court held that compulsory retirement
\ndoes not involve civil consequences.\n<\/p>\n
     It,  therefore,   follows\tthat  compulsory  retirement
\nsimpliciter does  not amount  to  dismissal  or\t removal  or
\nreduction in  rank under  Article 311  or under\t the Service
\nRules. It  is in  fact compulsory  retirement in  accordance
\nwith the terms and conditions of service.\n<\/p>\n
     The decisions  of this Court in State of West Bengal v.
\nNripendra Nath\tBagchi and  High Court of Punjab and Haryana<\/a>
\netc. v.\t State of  Haryana (Sub\t nom Narendra Singh Rao) are
\nthat Article  235 vests\t in  the  High\tCourt  control\tover
\nDistrict Courts and courts subordinate thereto. The Governor
\nappoints  and\tdismisses  and\tremoves\t Judicial  Officers.
\nControl which  is vested  in  the  High\t Court\tis  complete
\ncontrol subject only to the power of the Governor in the
\n606<\/span>
\nmatter\tof   appointment   including   dismissal,   removal,
\nreduction in rank and the initial posting and of the initial
\npromotion to  District Judges.\tThere is  nothing in Article
\n235 to\trestrict the control of the High Court in respect of
\nJudges other than District Judges in any manner. Article 311
\nhas  taken  away  the  power  of  dismissal  or\t removal  or
\nreduction in  rank from\t the High Court and the Governor has
\nbeen given that special power referred to in Article 311(3).\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t in Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
\nheld that  when a  case is  not of  removal or\tdismissal or
\nreduction in  rank any\torder  in  respect  of\texercise  of
\ncontrol over  the Judicial Officers is by the High Court and
\nno other  authority. There  cannot be dual control. If State
\nGovernment is  to have\tthe  power  of\tdeciding  whether  a
\nJudicial  Officer   should  be\tretained  in  service  after
\nattaining the age of 55 years up to the age of 58 years that
\nwill seriously\taffect the independence of the judiciary and
\ntake away  the control\tvested in the High Court. Compulsory
\nretirement is  neither suspension  nor removal nor reduction
\nin rank.  It is unsound to contend that the Governor and not
\nthe High  Court has  the power\tto retire a Judicial Officer
\ncompulsorily under  section 14 of the Punjab General Clauses
\nAct. The  suggestion that  the High Court recommends and the
\nState Government  is to\t implement the recommendation in the
\nmatter of compulsory retirement is to destroy the control of
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The Punjab\t Civil Service\tRules in  Rule 3.26(a) deals
\nwith compulsory\t retirement at\tthe age\t of 58. Rule 5.32(c)
\ndeals with retirement at the age of 55.\n<\/p>\n
     Two relevant rules in the Punjab Civil Service Rules in
\nthe present  case are  these. Rule  3.26(a) states  that the
\ndate of\t compulsory retirement of a Government servant other
\nthan a\tClass IV  Government servant is the date on which he
\nattains the  age of  58. Rule 5.32(c) states that a retiring
\npension is granted to a Government servant who is retired by
\nthe appointing\tauthority on  or after he attains the age of
\n55 years by giving him not less than three months’ notice.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t in Bagchi’s  case (supra) said that control
\nvested in  the High Court is over the conduct and discipline
\nof the\tmembers of  the Judicial  Service. Orders  passed in
\ndisciplinary jurisdiction  by the  High Court are subject to
\nan appeal as provided in the conditions of service. The High
\nCourt further  deals with members of the judicial service in
\naccordance with\t the rules  and conditions  of service. This
\nCourt in  Bagchi’s case\t (supra) said  that the\t word “deal”
\npoints\tto   disciplinary  and\t not  merely  administrative
\njurisdiction. The  order terminating  the appointment  of  a
\nmember of  the service\totherwise than upon his reaching the
\nage fixed  for superannuation  will be\tpassed by  the State
\nGovernment on  the recommendation of the High Court. This is
\nbecause the  High Court is not the authority for appointing,
\nremoving, reducing the rank or terminating the service.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is   true  that   the\tfixation   of  the   age  of
\nsuperannuation is  the right  of the  State Government.\t The
\ncurtailment of that period under rule
\n607<\/span>
\ngoverning the  conditions of  service is a matter pertaining
\nto disciplinary\t  control as well as administrative control.
\nDisciplinary control  means not merely jurisdiction to award
\npunishment for\tmisconduct. It\talso embraces  the power  to
\ndetermine whether  the record  of a member of the service is
\nsatisfactory or\t not so\t as to\tentitle him  to continue  in
\nservice for  the full  term  till  he  attains\tthe  age  of
\nsuperannuation. Administrative,\t judicial  and\tdisciplinary
\ncontrol over  members of  the  Judicial\t Service  is  vested
\nsolely in  the High  Court. Premature  retirement is made in
\nthe   exercise\t  of   administrative\t and\tdisciplinary
\njurisdiction. It  is administrative because it is decided in
\npublic\tinterest   to  retire\thim  pre-maturely.   It\t  is
\ndisciplinary because  the decision  was taken  that he\tdoes
\ndeserve to  continue in\t service up  to the  normal  age  of
\nsuperannuation and  that it  is in the public interest to do
\nso.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court held in State of Assam v. Ranga Mahammad and
\nOrs.<\/a> that  the Governor\t under Article 233 is concerned with
\nthe appointment,  promotion and\t posting  to  the  cadre  of
\nDistrict Judges but not with the transfer of District Judges
\nalready appointed  or promoted and posted to the cadre. This
\nCourt has  held in  the Punjab and Haryana case (supra) that
\nthe confirmation  of District  Judges is  to be\t done by the
\nHigh Court because it falls within the control vested in the
\nHigh Court.  The High  Court is acquainted with the capacity
\nof work\t of the\t members of  the Service.  In the  Punjab  &
\nHaryana case  (supra) this  Court pointed  out that if after
\nthe appointment\t of District  Judge till he is confirmed the
\nState is allowed to control the District Judge there will be
\ndual control.  This is\tnot the\t meaning of “control” in our
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The control  vested in  the High  Court is\t that if the
\nHigh Court  is of opinion that a particular Judicial Officer
\nis not\tfit to\tbe retained  in service\t the High Court will
\ncommunicate that to the Governor because the Governor is the
\nauthority to  dismiss, remove,\treduce in  rank or terminate
\nthe appointment.  In such  cases it  is the contemplation in
\nthe Constitution  that the Governor as the head of the State
\nwill act  in harmony  with the\trecommendation of  the\tHigh
\nCourt. If  the recommendation  of the High Court is not held
\nto be binding on the State consequences will be unfortunate.
\nIt is  in public  interest that\t the State  will accept\t the
\nrecommendation of  the High  Court. The\t vesting of complete
\ncontrol over  the Subordinate  Judiciary in  the High  Court
\nleads to this that the decision of the High Court in matters
\nwithin its jurisdiction will bind the State. “The Government
\nwill act  on the  recommendation of  the High Court. That is
\nthe broad  basis of  Article 235”. See Shamsher Singh’s case
\n(supra) at page 841.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  present case,  the order  of the State retiring
\nthe respondent from service after the expiry of three months
\nfrom the  date of the order 20 August, 1971 has been rightly
\nquashed by  the High  Court. The High Court did not make any
\nrecommendation to that effect.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n608<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & … on 7 May, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1841, 1976 SCR 603 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RESPONDENT: INDER PRAKASH ANAND H.C.S. & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/05\/1976 BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. […]<\/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-145471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & ... on 7 May, 1976 - 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\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & ... on 7 May, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-03T13:27:45+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & … on 7 May, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-03T13:27:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976\"},\"wordCount\":1875,\"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\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & ... on 7 May, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-03T13:27:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & … on 7 May, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & ... on 7 May, 1976 - 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\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & ... on 7 May, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-03T13:27:45+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & … on 7 May, 1976","datePublished":"1976-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-03T13:27:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976"},"wordCount":1875,"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\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976","name":"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & ... on 7 May, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-03T13:27:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-inder-prakash-anand-h-c-s-on-7-may-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & … on 7 May, 1976"}]},{"@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\/145471","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=145471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}