{"id":159634,"date":"1988-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988"},"modified":"2016-09-01T09:38:43","modified_gmt":"2016-09-01T04:08:43","slug":"shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988","title":{"rendered":"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, … on 27 July, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, … on 27 July, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1673, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 621<\/div>\n
Author: M Dutt<\/div>\n
Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHIY KUMAR SHARMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHANDIGARH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/07\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1673\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 621\n 1988 SCC  Supl.  669\t  JT 1988 (3)\t131\n 1988 SCALE  (2)79\n\n\nACT:\n     Civil Services:  Confirmation-Archaic rule giving scope\nto executive  authorities to  act malafide\/arbitrarily-Gives\nrise to unnecessary litigations-High time for Government and\nauthorities to think over.\n     Seniority-Seniority has  nothing to do with stoppage of\nincrement-Such minor  punishment not  to  affect  seniority-\nEspecially when probation is completed satisfactorily.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  was appointed  an Assistant\t Engineer on\nJune 10,  1963 in  the Punjab  State  Electricity  Board  on\nprobation for  two years  which ended  on June\t10, 1965. On\nbifurcation of\tPunjab Electricity Board, the service of the\nappellant was  allocated to Haryana State Electricity Board.\nAs a result of a disciplinary proceeding held against him in\n1968, a\t minor penalty\tof stoppage of one increment without\nany future effect was imposed on the appellant. After expiry\nof  one\t  year,\t the   appellant  was,\thowever,  given\t the\nincrement.\n     By virtue\tof  an\torder  dated  March  30,  1970,\t the\nappellant  and\t respondents  2\t to  19\t were  confirmed  as\nAssistant Engineers,  class-II on  satisfactorily completing\nthe probation  period of  two years.  Though the others were\nconfirmed with\teffect from April 1, 1969, the appellant was\nconfirmed with\teffect from  December 1, 1969. Consequently,\nthe appellant's\t name was  placed last\tof all the confirmed\nofficers. The  appellant challenged the said order by way of\na writ\tpetition before\t the High  Court which dismissed the\npetition. This\tappeal\tby  special  leave  is\tagainst\t the\njudgment of the High Court. G\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD:  1.\tThe  penalty  by  way  of  stoppage  of\t one\nincrement for  one year\t was without  any future  effect. In\nother words,  the appellant's  increment for  one  year\t was\nstopped and such stoppage of increment will H\n622\nhave no effect whatsoever on his seniority. Accordingly, the\nElectricity Board  acted illegally  and most  arbitrarily in\nplacing the  juniors of\t the  appellant\t above\thim  in\t the\nseniority list\tand\/or confirming  the appellant in the post\nwith effect  from December 1, 1969 instead of April 1, 1969.\nThe question of seniority has nothing to do with the penalty\nthat was imposed upon the appellant. It is apparent that for\nthe same  act of misconduct, the appellant has been punished\ntwice, that  is, first, by the stoppage of one increment for\none year  and, second,\tby placing  him below his juniors in\nthe seniority list. [624G-H; 625A]\n     2. There  is no explanation why the confirmation of the\nappellant  was\t deferred  till\t  December  1,\t 1969.\t The\nexplanation that  after some  substantive posts\t had  fallen\nvacant on  April 1,  1969, the\tquestion of confirmation was\ntaken into  consideration is  not supported by. any material\non record  inasmuch as\tthere is  nothing to show when these\nposts had  fallen vacant. It is difficult to accept that all\nthese posts  had fallen\t vacant on the same day, that is, on\nApril 1, 1969. Though the vacancies had occurred before that\nday, the  Board did  not care  to take\tup the\tquestion  of\nconfirmation for  reasons best\tknown to  it. While there is\nsome necessity for appointing a person in government service\non probation  for a  particular period, there may not be any\nneed for  confirmation of  that officer after the completion\nof  the\t  probationary\t period.   The\t archaic   rule\t  of\nconfirmation, still in force, gives a scope to the executive\nauthorities to\tact arbitrarily\t or malafide  giving rise to\nunnecessary litigations. It is high time that the Government\nand other  authorities should  think  over  the\t matter\t and\nrelieve the  government\t servants  of  becoming\t victims  of\narbitrary actions. [625H; 626B; 625C;-D]\n     S.B. Patwardhan  & others\tv. State  of  Maharashtra  &\nothers, [1977] 3 SCR 775, referred to.\n     [Setting  aside   the  High   Court  judgment  and\t the\nseniority list,\t this Court  directed that a fresh seniority\nlist be\t prepared within  six months  on the  basis of\tthis\njudgment and  maintain the appellant's seniority in the post\nto which he has been promoted in the meantime.] [626D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 301 of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order  dated  1.2.1983  of\t the
\nPunjab and  Haryana High  Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
\n1410 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     P.D. Sharrna for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
623<\/span><\/p>\n
     Parmod Dayal for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DUTT, J.  This appeal  by\tspecial\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
\nof Punjab  & Haryana  whereby the  High Court  dismissed  in
\nlimine the  letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant
\nagainst the  judgment of  a learned Single Judge of the High
\nCourt dismissing the writ petition of the appellant relating
\nto his seniority.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  was appointed  an Assistant\t Engineer-II
\nwith  effect   from  June  10,\t1963  in  the  Punjab  State
\nElectricity Board  on probation for two years which ended on
\nJune 10,  1965. After  the bifurcation\tof the\tPunjab State
\nElectricity  Board,   the  service   of\t the  appellant\t was
\nallocated  to\tthe   Haryana\tState\tElectricity   Board,
\nhereinafter referred  to as  ‘the Board’.  As a\t result of a
\ndisciplinary proceeding held against the appellant, on April
\n15, 1968.  a minor penalty for the stoppage of one increment
\nwithout any  future effect  was imposed\t on the appellant by
\nthe Board.  After the expiry of one year, the appellant was,
\nhowever, given the increment.\n<\/p>\n
     Although the  probationary period\tof the appellant was
\ncompleted on  June 10,\t1965, he  was not confirmed within a
\nreasonable time\t thereafter. There  is also  no material  to
\nshow that  his period  of probation  was  extended.  In\t the
\nmeantime, some\tsubstantive posts  of  Assistant  Engineers,
\nClass-II, fell\tvacant and  by an order dated March 30, 1970
\nof the\tSecretary  to  the  Board,  the\t appellant  and\t the
\nrespondents  Nos.  2  to  19  were  confirmed  as  Assistant
\nEngineers, Class-II.  It has been specifically stated in the
\nsaid order that the officers mentioned therein, that is, the
\nappellant  and\t the  respondents   Nos.  2   to   19,\t had
\nsatisfactorily completed  the  probationary  period  of\t two
\nyears.\tIt,  however,  appears\tfrom  the  said\t order\tthat
\nrespondents Nos.2  to 14  were confirmed  in  the  posts  of
\nAssistant Engineers,  Class-II, with  effect from  April  1,
\n1969, while  the appellant  was confirmed  in that post with
\neffect from  December 1, 1969. Consequently, the appellant’s
\nname was  placed last  of all the confirmed officers. In the
\nseniority list\talso, the  name of  the appellant was placed
\nagainst serial\tNo. 63,\t that is,  below the  names  of\t the
\nrespondents Nos.  2  to\t 19,  although\tthe  seniority\tlist
\nappears to have been prepared on the basis of the respective
\ndates of  appointments of the officers. As the appellant was
\nappointed on June 10, 1963, his name should have been placed
\nbelow the  name of  Pawan Kumar\t Aggarwal  (Serial  No.\t 45)
\nrespondent No. 3<\/span>
\n624<\/span>
\nappointed on June 7, 1963 and above the name of Sudesh Kumar
\nTuli (Serial  No. 46) respondent No. 2 appointed on June 21,
\n1963, but  his name  was placed\t below that  of Ved  Prakash
\nLalit (Serial  No. 62),\t who was appointed on April 7, 1964.
\nIn other words, the names of the respondents Nos. 2 and 4 to
\n19, who\t are all juniors to the appellant, were placed above
\nthe name  of the appellant in the seniority list without any
\nreason whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
     Being aggrieved  by the  impugned order  of  the  Board
\ndated March 30, 1970 and also the seniority list wherein the
\nappellant’s name  has been  placed below  the names  of\t his
\njuniors, namely,  respondents  Nos.  2\tand  4\tto  19,\t the
\nappellant filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the
\nPunjab &  Haryana High Court. As stated already, the learned
\nSingle Judge  dismissed the  writ petition,  and the letters
\npatent appeal  preferred by the appellant against. the order
\nof the\tlearned Single\tJudge was also dismissed. Hence this
\nappeal. It  may be  stated here\t that respondent No. 4, S.P.
\nNlidha, is since dead.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  point that  is involved\tin  this  appeal  is
\nwhether\t the   Board  was   justified  in   confirming\t the
\nappointment of\tthe  appellant\tin  the\t post  of  Assistant
\nEngineer, Class-II,  with effect  from December\t 1, 1969 and
\nplacing him below his juniors, namely respondents Nos. 2 and
\n4 to 19, in the seniority list. As has been noticed already,
\nthere is no material to show why the appellant was confirmed
\nin the\tpost with  effect from December 1, 1969, when he had
\ncompleted   his\t   probationary\t  period    of\t two   years
\nsatisfactorily. It  is submitted on behalf of the Board that
\nas the\tminor penalty was imposed on the appellant by way of
\nstoppage of  his increment  for one  year, he  was confirmed
\nwith effect  from December  1, 1969  and  placed  below\t the
\nrespondents Nos. 2 and 4 to 19 in the seniority list.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  unable to\taccept\tthe  above  contention.\t The
\npenalty was  imposed on\t April 15,  1968 and, as a result of
\nwhich, he  was deprived\t of  the  monetary  benefit  of\t one
\nincrement for  one year only. The penalty by way of stoppage
\nof one increment for one year was without any future effect.
\nIn other  words, the  appellant’s increment for one year was
\nstopped and  such stoppage  of increment will have no effect
\nwhatsoever on  his seniority.  Accordingly, the\t Board acted
\nillegally and most arbitrarily in placing the juniors of the
\nappellant above\t him in the seniority list and\/or confirming
\nthe appellant in the post with effect from December 1, 1969,
\nthat is,  long after  the date\tof confirmation\t of the said
\nrespondents Nos.  2 to\t19. The\t question of  seniority\t has
\nnothing to  do with  the penalty  that was  imposed upon the
\nappellant. It
\n625<\/span>
\nis apparent  that  for\tthe  same  act\tof  misconduct,\t the
\nappellant has  been punished  twice, that  is, first, by the
\nstoppage of  one increment  for one  year  and,\t second,  by
\nplacing him below his juniors in the seniority list.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  should have\t been confirmed\t on June 10,
\n1965 on\t which date  he\t had  completed\t two  years  of\t his
\nprobationary  period.\tAs  has\t been  stated  already,\t the
\nprobationary period was not extended. The Board has not laid
\ndown any  guideline  for  confirmation.\t There\tis  no\trule
\nshowing when  an officer  of the  Board will  be  confirmed.
\nWhile there  is some  necessity for  appointing a  person in
\ngovernment service  on probation  for a\t particular  period,
\nthere may  not be  any need for confirmation of that officer
\nafter the  completion of  the probationary period. If during
\nthe period  of probation a government servant is found to be
\nunsuitable, his\t services may  be terminated.  On the  other
\nhand, if  he is found to be suitable, he would be allowed to
\ncontinue in service. The archaic rule of confirmation, still
\nin force,  gives a scope to the executive authorities to act
\narbitrarily  or\t  malafide  giving   rise   to\t unnecessary
\nlitigations. It\t is high  time that the Government and other
\nauthorities should  think over\tthe matter  and relieve\t the
\ngovernment  servants   of  becoming   victims  of  arbitrary
\nactions. In  this connection we may refer to the decision in
\nthe case of S.B. Patwardhan & others v. State of Maharashtra
\n& Ors.\t[ 1977]\t 3 SCR\t775 where Chandrachud, C.J. speaking
\nfor the Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Confirmation\t  is\tone   of    the\t  inglorious
\n\t  uncertainties\t of   government  service  depending
\n\t  neither on  efficiency of the incumbent nor on the
\n\t  availability of  substantive vacancies.  A glaring
\n\t  instance widely  known in a part of our country is
\n\t  of a distinguished member of the judiciary who was
\n\t  confirmed as\ta District  Judge years after he was
\n\t  confirmed as\ta Judge\t of the High Court. It is on
\n\t  the  record\tof   these   writ   petitions\tthat
\n\t  officiating Deputy  Engineers were  not  confirmed
\n\t  even though  substantive vacancies  were available
\n\t  in which  they could have been confirmed. It shows
\n\t  that confirmation  does not have to conform to any
\n\t  set  rules  and  whether  an\temployee  should  be
\n\t  confirmed or\tnot depends  on the  sweet will\t and
\n\t  pleasure of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  instant case, although the Board found that the
\nappellant  had\t satisfactorily\t completed   his  period  of
\nprobation, yet\the was\tplaced\tbelow  his  juniors  in\t the
\nseniority list\twithout any  rhyme or  reason. There  is  no
\nexplanation  why  the  confirmation  of\t the  appellant\t was
\ndeferred till December 1, 1969. It is, however, submitted on
\nbehalf of
\n626<\/span>
\nthe Board  that after  some  substantive  posts\t had  fallen
\nvacant on April 1, 1969, the question of confirmation of the
\nappellant and  the respondents\tNos. 2\tto 19 was taken into
\nconsideration. This  submission\t is  not  supported  by\t any
\nmaterial on record inasmuch as there is nothing to show when
\nthese posts  had fallen\t vacant. It  is difficult  to accept
\nthat all these posts had fallen vacant on the same day, that
\nis, on\tApril 1,  1969. We have, therefore, no hesitation in
\nholding that the vacancies had occurred before that day, but
\nthe  Board   did  not  care  to\t take  up  the\tquestion  of
\nconfirmation for reasons best known to it. That facts stated
\nhereinabove, disclose  that the\t Board had acted arbitrarily
\nat its\tsweet will  and without any justification whatsoever
\nin making the appellant junior to the respondents Nos. 2 and
\n4 to  19, who  are admittedly  juniors\tin  service  to\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons aforesaid, the judgment of the learned
\nSingle Judge  and that\tof the\tDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh
\nCourt and  the impugned\t seniority list\t are set  aside.  We
\ndirect that  a fresh  seniority list  shall be\tprepared  by
\nplacing the appellant immediately below Pawan Kumar Aggarwal
\nand above  Sudesh Kumar\t Tuli within six weeks from date and
\nmaintain the seniority of the appellant, as directed, in the
\npost to\t which\tthe  appellant\thas  been  promoted  in\t the
\nmeantime .\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000
\nG.N.\t\t\t\t\tAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
627<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, … on 27 July, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1673, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 621 Author: M Dutt Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J) PETITIONER: SHIY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHANDIGARH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/07\/1988 BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: […]<\/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-159634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, ... on 27 July, 1988 - 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\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, ... on 27 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-01T04:08:43+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, … on 27 July, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-01T04:08:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1578,\"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\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988\",\"name\":\"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, ... on 27 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-01T04:08:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, … on 27 July, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, ... on 27 July, 1988 - 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\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, ... on 27 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-01T04:08:43+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, … on 27 July, 1988","datePublished":"1988-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-01T04:08:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988"},"wordCount":1578,"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\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988","name":"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, ... on 27 July, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-01T04:08:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiy-kumar-sharma-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-27-july-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiy Kumar Sharma vs Haryana State Electricity Board, … on 27 July, 1988"}]},{"@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\/159634","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=159634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159634\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}