{"id":155856,"date":"2009-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2"},"modified":"2017-08-23T23:12:21","modified_gmt":"2017-08-23T17:42:21","slug":"shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre> IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                             Civil Writ Petition No.13495 of 2009\n                                 Date of Decision: September 01, 2009\n\n\nShiam Sunder\n                                                       .....PETITIONER(S)\n\n                                 VERSUS\n\nSecretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Irrigation,\nPunjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh &amp; Others\n                                                      .....RESPONDENT(S)<\/pre>\n<pre>                             .         .     .\n\n\nCORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA\n\n\nPRESENT: -       Mr. Vivek K. Thakur,                       Advocate,\n                 for the petitioner.\n\n                 Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy\n                 Advocate General, Punjab, for the\n                 respondents.\n\n\n                             .         .     .\n\nAJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)\n\n                 Notice of motion.\n\n                 Ms.    Charu               Tuli,     Senior      Deputy\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>Advocate General, Punjab, on the asking of the<\/p>\n<p>Court,    accepts       notice               on     behalf      of     the<\/p>\n<p>respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>                 Heard.\n<\/p>\n<pre>                 In     this               petition     filed        under\n\nArticle   226\/227      of        the       Constitution      of   India,\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of<\/p>\n<p>certiorari,      Office            Orders           dated    23.3.2007<\/p>\n<p>(Annexure      P-1)    and        1.8.2008          (Annexure        P-2).\n<\/p>\n<pre> CWP No.13495 of 2009                                     [2]\n\n\n\nChallenge        is     also      to      letter     dated     6.1.2009\n\n(Annexure        P-3,      collectively).          Prayer      has    also\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of<\/p>\n<p>mandamus directing the respondents not to effect<\/p>\n<p>recovery from the pension of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>                      It    has     been       pleaded       that     the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner was appointed as a Welder on 11.2.1986<\/p>\n<p>and    superannuated           on        31.10.2002.     During        the<\/p>\n<p>course      of     service          of       the   petitioner,         the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner served at Ranjit Sagar Dam as work<\/p>\n<p>charge employee. At that point in time, certain<\/p>\n<p>special increments were given in view of exigency<\/p>\n<p>of services and hazardous work done.<\/p>\n<p>                      Under    first         impugned    Order       dated<\/p>\n<p>23.3.2007 (Annexure P-1) which was issued about<\/p>\n<p>five years after retirement of the petitioner, it<\/p>\n<p>has been pointed out that special increments were<\/p>\n<p>given to the petitioner while he was serving as<\/p>\n<p>work    charge        employee.        The    said   increments        are<\/p>\n<p>required to be withdrawn as the same were not<\/p>\n<p>permissible under the letters and instructions<\/p>\n<p>issued by the State of Punjab. Further, action<\/p>\n<p>for recovery has been proposed after refixation<\/p>\n<p>of the pay of the petitioner on withdrawal of<\/p>\n<p>special increments.\n<\/p>\n<p>                      Vide Order Annexure P-2, the Audit<\/p>\n<p>&amp; Accounts Department, vide Letter dated 1.8.2008<br \/>\n CWP No.13495 of 2009                                          [3]<\/p>\n<p>directed that special increments are not to be<\/p>\n<p>taken into account for the purpose of pay of<\/p>\n<p>pensioner       as     the   same      had     been       withdrawn         and<\/p>\n<p>accordingly, the pay of the petitioner be refixed<\/p>\n<p>after withdrawal of special increments. Annexure<\/p>\n<p>P-2   further        directed       that      the     amount        of     over<\/p>\n<p>payment on account of excess pay and allowances<\/p>\n<p>be worked out.\n<\/p>\n<pre>                     Annexure           P-3         dated           6.1.2009\n\nstipulates        that       a      sum       of      Rs.77,534\/-             is\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>recoverable which has been paid on account of<\/p>\n<p>excess       special          increments             and        retrenchee<\/p>\n<p>benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                     It has been brought out that the<\/p>\n<p>matter     is   covered        by    judgment          of    this      Court,<\/p>\n<p>dated 27.5.2009, rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.5568<\/p>\n<p>of 2008 titled `<a href=\"\/doc\/46565758\/\">Charan Dass &amp; Others vs. State of Punjab &amp;<\/p>\n<p>Others&#8217;,<\/a> wherein the following has been held:-<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                          &#8220;It is admitted case of the parties that the work<br \/>\n                  charge period is to be counted as qualifying period for the<br \/>\n                  grant of pensionary benefits and thus the emoluments drawn<br \/>\n                  by the employee as work charge employee had to be<br \/>\n                  considered as also the period when the employee served in<br \/>\n                  work charge capacity. It is admitted case of the parties that<br \/>\n                  the benefit of retrenchment increments and special<br \/>\n                  increments was granted to the employees during the period<br \/>\n                  they were serving in work charge capacity without any<br \/>\n                  misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The benefit allowed<br \/>\n                  to the petitioners is, however, sought to be withdrawn after<br \/>\n                  take over and regularisation by the State Government with<br \/>\n                  effect from 13.3.1996. The retrenchment increments were<br \/>\n                  allowed to bring their salary and emoluments at par with<br \/>\n                  other employees in the revised pay scale, keeping in view<br \/>\n                  their last drawn salary as retrenchees. No reasons have been<br \/>\n                  given in the reply as to how such benefit is impermissible or<br \/>\n                  illegal. The State, however, has attempted to justify its<br \/>\n CWP No.13495 of 2009                                          [4]<\/p>\n<p>                  action regarding withdrawal of special and retrenchment<br \/>\n                  increments. Admittedly, special increments were granted<br \/>\n                  from time to time to some of the employees\/petitioners for<br \/>\n                  their alleged good work. There was no uniform policy and<br \/>\n                  benefit of special increments was given on selective basis.<br \/>\n                  In so far as the retrenchment increments are concerned,<br \/>\n                  there cannot be any second opinion that the benefit was<br \/>\n                  granted to bring their wages at par under the revised pay<br \/>\n                  scale and that too before their take over by the State<br \/>\n                  Government.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                         As regards the grant of special increments is<br \/>\n                  concerned, it was selectively granted from person to person<br \/>\n                  and is not justified. However, one fact remains common in<br \/>\n                  regard to grant of both the benefits i.e. retrenchment<br \/>\n                  increments and special increments that the said benefits<br \/>\n                  were conferred upon the petitioners without any<br \/>\n                  misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The issue is<br \/>\n                  squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court<br \/>\n                  passed in CWP No.2799 of 2008 alongwith other<br \/>\n                  connected matters <a href=\"\/doc\/1434376\/\">(Budh Ram and others vs. State of<br \/>\n                  Haryana and others<\/a>) decided on 22.5.2009. The case of<br \/>\n                  the petitioners falls in category ii) wherein following<br \/>\n                  observations have been made:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                               &#8220;It is in the light of the above pronouncement,<br \/>\n                              no longer open to the authorities granting the<br \/>\n                              benefits, no matter erroneously, to contend that<br \/>\n                              even when the employee concerned was not at<br \/>\n                              fault and was not in any way responsible for<br \/>\n                              the mistake committed by the authorities, they<br \/>\n                              are entitled to recover the benefit that has been<br \/>\n                              received by the employee on the basis of any<br \/>\n                              such erroneous grant. We say so primarily<br \/>\n                              because if the employee is not responsible for<br \/>\n                              the erroneous grant of benefit to him\/her, it<br \/>\n                              would induce in him the belief that the same<br \/>\n                              was indeed due and payable. Acting on that<br \/>\n                              belief the employee would, as any other person<br \/>\n                              placed in his position arrange his affairs<br \/>\n                              accordingly which he may not have done if he<br \/>\n                              had known that the benefit being granted to<br \/>\n                              him is likely to be withdrawn at any<br \/>\n                              subsequent point of time on what may be then<br \/>\n                              said to be the correct interpretation and<br \/>\n                              application of rules. Having induced that belief<br \/>\n                              in the employee and made him change his<br \/>\n                              position and arrange his affairs in a manner<br \/>\n                              that he would not otherwise have done, it<br \/>\n                              would be unfair, inequitable and harsh for the<br \/>\n                              Government to direct recovery of the excess<br \/>\n                              amount simply because on a true and correct<br \/>\n                              interpretation of the rules, such a benefit was<br \/>\n                              not due&#8230;&#8230;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                              We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding<br \/>\n                              that in case the employees who are recipient of<br \/>\n                              the benefits extended to them on an erroneous<br \/>\n                              interpretation or application of any rule,<br \/>\n CWP No.13495 of 2009                                               [5]<\/p>\n<p>                                  regulation, circular and instructions have not<br \/>\n                                  in any way contributed to such erroneous<br \/>\n                                  interpretation nor have they committed any<br \/>\n                                  fraud, misrepresentation, deception to obtain<br \/>\n                                  the grant of such benefit, the benefit so<br \/>\n                                  extended may be stopped for the future, but<br \/>\n                                  the amount already paid to the employees<br \/>\n                                  cannot be recovered from them&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                            In view of the above, the respondents are not entitled<br \/>\n                    to effect any recovery from the petitioners either on account<br \/>\n                    of retrenchment increments or special increments allegedly<br \/>\n                    erroneously given. However, the respondents are entitled to<br \/>\n                    re-fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment<br \/>\n                    only. Consequently the pay of the petitioners will be re-<br \/>\n                    fixed and in case of those employees who have already<br \/>\n                    retired from service, the retiral benefits shall be released<br \/>\n                    within a period of two months. The petitioners shall also be<br \/>\n                    entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension\/retiral<br \/>\n                    benefits at the statutory rate wherever admissible and at the<br \/>\n                    rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where<br \/>\n                    statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted<br \/>\n                    from the retiral benefits or the salary of the petitioners shall<br \/>\n                    be refunded within the aforesaid period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                           Ordered accordingly. Disposed of.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                    Learned counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n<p>has not been able to distinguish the judgment<\/p>\n<p>rendered in Charan Dass&#8217;s case (supra) which would have<\/p>\n<p>application to the facts of the case as pleaded.<\/p>\n<p>                    In view of the above, this petition<\/p>\n<p>is allowed in terms of judgment of this Court,<\/p>\n<p>dated 27.5.2009, rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.5568<\/p>\n<p>of 2008 titled `<a href=\"\/doc\/46565758\/\">Charan Dass &amp; Others vs. State of Punjab &amp;<\/p>\n<p>Others&#8217;,<\/a> portion whereof has been extracted above.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n                                                                (AJAI LAMBA)\nSeptember 01, 2009                                                 JUDGE\navin\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.     To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13495 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 01, 2009 Shiam Sunder &#8230;..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Irrigation, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh &amp; Others &#8230;..RESPONDENT(S) [&hellip;]<\/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-155856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-23T17:42:21+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T17:42:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1263,\"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\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T17:42:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 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":"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-23T17:42:21+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T17:42:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2"},"wordCount":1263,"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\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2","name":"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T17:42:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiam-sunder-vs-secretary-to-government-of-punjab-on-1-september-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiam Sunder vs Secretary To Government Of Punjab on 1 September, 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\/155856","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=155856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}