{"id":16246,"date":"2009-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-28T17:45:21","modified_gmt":"2015-09-28T12:15:21","slug":"state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana Through … vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana Through … vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M)                                 -1-\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND\n             HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                              C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M)\n                              Date of Decision:24 .07.2009\n\n\nState of Haryana through Director-Principal, Chhotu Ram State\nCollege of Engineering, Murthal, District Sonepat\n\n                                                      .....Petitioner\n\n                               Versus\n\nSantro Devi and others                            ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Advocate, Addl. A.G., Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
         for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
          Mrs. Abha Rathore, Advocate
\n          for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN<\/p>\n
1.        Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
\n          the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2.        To be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.        Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?\n<\/p>\n
                    -.-\n<\/p>\n
K. KANNAN J.\n<\/p>\n
1.        The dispute raised by the workmen through the demand<\/p>\n
notice was that they had been performing duties as Lab Attendants in<\/p>\n
as many as 31 different labs in the Chhotu Ram State College of<\/p>\n
Engineering and being cast on a pay scale of Rs.750-940\/-, which was<\/p>\n
lower than the scale of Lab Attendants in other Government<\/p>\n
Engineering Colleges.    According to them, they were entitled to<\/p>\n
higher scales of pay and they were entitled also to be re-designated as<\/p>\n
Lab Attendants.\n<\/p>\n
2.        The management contended that Peons-cum-Attendants, to<\/p>\n
which designation the workmen had been assigned, held Class IV
\n C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M)                                  -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
posts and a re-designation that they were seeking as Lab Attendants<\/p>\n
was Class III posts carrying higher scales of pay and the Labour Court<\/p>\n
had not the competency to change the cadre and admit to the workmen<\/p>\n
a higher scale of pay. The Labour Court found on evidence let in<\/p>\n
before it that the persons who had been designated as Peons-cum-<\/p>\n
Attendants were actually performing the duties as Lab Attendants at<\/p>\n
the various labs in the Engineering College and hence they were<\/p>\n
entitled to be re-designated as Lab Attendants and they were also<\/p>\n
entitled to a higher scale of pay w.e.f. 01.05.1990 with a direction that<\/p>\n
no further recruitment of non-matrics as Lab Attendants shall be made<\/p>\n
by the management institution.\n<\/p>\n
3.        Learned Counsel, Sh. Nalwa appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
State represented through the Director Principal of the College had<\/p>\n
filed some additional documents before this Court, which referred to<\/p>\n
the actual sanctioned strength as ordered by the Governor of Haryana<\/p>\n
vide his letter dated 06.05.1987. As per the said communication, there<\/p>\n
were three Lab Technicians in the pay scale of Rs.480-760\/- (pre-<\/p>\n
revised), three Lab Attendants (Non Matric\/Matric) in the pay-scale of<\/p>\n
Rs.350-500\/- and Rs.400-660\/- respectively. The sanctioned posts of<\/p>\n
Peons were 4. By a subsequent communication dated 03.08.1988,<\/p>\n
sanction had been accorded for 7 Attendants in the pay scale of<\/p>\n
Rs.750-940\/-, amongst other posts. Under a communication dated<\/p>\n
19\/24.10.1988, the nomenclature of the Lab\/Workshop Attendants<\/p>\n
(Matric) became Laboratory Assistants and Lab Attendants (non-<\/p>\n
matric) became merely Attendants. These documents were objected to<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that they had not
\n C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M)                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
been filed before the Labour Court and no reliance could be made.<\/p>\n
However, I find that these communications are merely details<\/p>\n
regarding the sanctioned posts and the various designations that were<\/p>\n
available. It is not as if the workmen could complain that they were<\/p>\n
being taken by surprise. After all along the contention on behalf of<\/p>\n
the management was that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
upgrade the Peons-cum-Attendants, who were Class IV employees to<\/p>\n
higher class namely of the Lab Attendants, who are Class III<\/p>\n
employees. I, therefore, receive those documents as relevant in this<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
4.       It is not denied that the Peons-cum-Attendants were Class<\/p>\n
IV employees and Lab Attendants presently designated as Lab<\/p>\n
Assistants are Class III employees. The Labour Court had examined<\/p>\n
the evidence of the witnesses on both sides and found that the Peons-<\/p>\n
cum-Attendants were actually assisting the Lab Technicians and that<\/p>\n
they were employed to help the Lab Technicians for maintenance and<\/p>\n
work in the class. The Foreman examined on the side of management<\/p>\n
had specifically admitted that when the claimants-workmen worked in<\/p>\n
the Lab, they did work of Lab Attendants. He explained on his own<\/p>\n
that they did the work of cleaning tool equipments, furniture etc.,<\/p>\n
giving tools to students and helped the technicians in maintenance and<\/p>\n
other help. Through the Registrar, the management sought to contend<\/p>\n
that AICTE had prescribed norms for affiliation and stated that while<\/p>\n
they had followed the norms set by AICTE for teaching staff, they did<\/p>\n
not follow the norms for Laboratory staff. He admitted that there were<\/p>\n
84 laboratories but said that they did not have any posts as Lab
\n C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M)                                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Attendants. He also admitted that Peons-cum-Attendants, who had<\/p>\n
been so employed actually worked in the Labs. In view of the specific<\/p>\n
admission made by the Registrar that they had not complied with the<\/p>\n
norms of the AICTE and they had the Peons-cum-Attendants working<\/p>\n
also in the Labs, the Labour Court applied the scales that were<\/p>\n
applicable to Lab Technicians in Engineering College Kurukshetra<\/p>\n
where they held the higher scales of pay of Rs.950-1500\/- and<\/p>\n
accorded to them such a higher scale on the principle of equal pay for<\/p>\n
equal work and directed the higher scales of pay to be given.<\/p>\n
5.        It should be seen that the principle of equal pay for equal<\/p>\n
work is not to be adopted in a mechanical fashion. The burden of<\/p>\n
proof that they were doing the same work as was being done<\/p>\n
elsewhere by other pesons who held higher scales of pay to merit<\/p>\n
claims to parity shall always be on the workmen, as held recently by a<\/p>\n
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.E.B and another<\/p>\n
Vs. Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also<\/p>\n
enunciated that the principle shall be applied not merely by the same<\/p>\n
work that is done but it should be ascertained also that the duties and<\/p>\n
responsibilities accompanying such post must been seen as identical<\/p>\n
(Director General of Works, CPWD Vs. Regional Labour<\/p>\n
Commissioner (Central) and others (2008) 2 SCC 589). The Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court also illustrated through several examples in another<\/p>\n
decision in State of Haryana and others Vs. Charanjit Singh and<\/p>\n
others (2006) 9 SCC 321 that cases like special scales to prevent a<\/p>\n
stagnation, strict selection process to identify certain classes of<\/p>\n
persons of higher merit for performing the same work might still merit
\n C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M)                                -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration of higher scale of pay.     In this case, there was an<\/p>\n
admission by the Registrar that the College had not the required<\/p>\n
strength of Lab Attendants as prescribed by the AICTE norms and had<\/p>\n
allowed the Peons-cum-Attendants to also work as Lab Attendants.<\/p>\n
At the same time, there was also evidence through the admission of<\/p>\n
the workmen themselves that they also worked in offices and<\/p>\n
whenever they worked in the Labs they worked as Lab Attendants.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel appearing for the workmen stated as a proposition of<\/p>\n
law that a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Artile 226 shall<\/p>\n
not interfere with definite findings of the fact and when the Labour<\/p>\n
Court had held that the workmen had been doing the work as Lab<\/p>\n
Attendants, the same cannot be interfered with and the scale of pay<\/p>\n
accorded to them at par with Lab Attendants elsewhere in the<\/p>\n
Engineering College, Kurukshetra ought not to be interfered with. I<\/p>\n
affirm the finding of the Labour Court that all the workmen were<\/p>\n
doing the work of Lab Attendants and they were entitled to a higher<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Rs.950-1500\/- (pre-revised) and a calculation of the<\/p>\n
same upto the date of judgment of the Labour Court is approved by<\/p>\n
this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
6.        Even while affirming the finding of the Labour Court, I<\/p>\n
cannot uphold the direction by the Labour Court re-designating the<\/p>\n
Peon-cum-Attendant as Lab Attendant and permanently increasing the<\/p>\n
scales of pay to Rs.950-1500\/- with a further embargo caused on the<\/p>\n
management to recruit non-matriculates Lab Attendants. The order<\/p>\n
given by the Labour Court would virtually amount to re-writing the<\/p>\n
cadre strength. Creation\/abolition of posts, formation\/restructuring of
\n C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M)                                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
cadres, upgradation of cadres or determining cadre strength are all<\/p>\n
matters that fall in employer’s domain that Courts shall be loathe to<\/p>\n
make judicial intervention. Please see Union of India Vs. S. Thakur<\/p>\n
(2008) 13 SCC 463; Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani (2008) 9 SCC<\/p>\n
242. If the Government had not provided for a higher cadre in Class<\/p>\n
III to accord with the AICTE norms, it shall be for the AICTE to make<\/p>\n
the institution conform to its regulation. The evidence of the Registrar<\/p>\n
making an open defiance that they have not conformed to the norms of<\/p>\n
AICTE with reference to the non-teaching staff is as candid as it is<\/p>\n
unacceptable.    The workmen or any interested party shall have<\/p>\n
appropriate remedy through representation also to AICTE to make<\/p>\n
them conform to the regulations. The parity of pay that the Labour<\/p>\n
Court has ordered, I have restricted it only upto the date of the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Labour Court and direct that it would not operate for<\/p>\n
any period subsequent to the judgment. Since the judgment has been<\/p>\n
rendered on the basis of evidence and on factual considerations which<\/p>\n
I am not inclined to interfere, it does not, however, mean all the<\/p>\n
Peons-cum-Attendants shall bear a nomenclature as Lab Attendants. I<\/p>\n
have already pointed out that the workmen were also working in<\/p>\n
offices as Attendants and it would be inappropriate to extend the equal<\/p>\n
pay for equal work doctrine without finding that all the workmen are<\/p>\n
employed only as Lab Attendants at all times and continue to be<\/p>\n
employed as such till date. It has to be seen on a case to case basis<\/p>\n
and without any evidence, till date, such an increase in scale of pay by<\/p>\n
a permanent arrangement through an order of the Court cannot be<\/p>\n
made. In retaining the workmen only in the cadre of Peons-cum-
\n C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M)                              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Attendants in Class IV category, I make it clear that it will also be<\/p>\n
open to the affected workmen to make appropriate representation to<\/p>\n
the government to have them re-designated appropriately for actual<\/p>\n
work done by them on a permanent basis. Independently of what<\/p>\n
workmen may opt to do, the Government is hereby directed to<\/p>\n
consider the actual condition prevalent now and take a decision about<\/p>\n
the feasibility of increasing the cadre strength to conform to AICTE<\/p>\n
norms as expeditiously as possible.\n<\/p>\n
7.        The order of the Labour Court is set aside and modified to<\/p>\n
permit the workmen to obtain a higher scales of pay (pre-revised) at<\/p>\n
Rs.950-1500\/- only upto the date of the order of the Labour Court and<\/p>\n
the direction of the Labour Court re-designating them as Lab<\/p>\n
Attendants is set aside. The directon against the management for<\/p>\n
recruiting non-matriculates as Lab Attendants is also set aside. The<\/p>\n
writ petition is ordered in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         (K. KANNAN)
\n                                           JUDGE
\nJuly 24 , 2009
\nPankaj*\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Haryana Through … vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009 C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.18412 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision:24 .07.2009 State of Haryana through Director-Principal, Chhotu Ram State College of […]<\/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-16246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana Through ... vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana Through ... vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-28T12:15:21+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=\"9 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-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana Through … vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-28T12:15:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1829,\"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\\\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana Through ... vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-28T12:15:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana Through … vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Haryana Through ... vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana Through ... vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-28T12:15:21+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana Through … vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-28T12:15:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009"},"wordCount":1829,"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\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009","name":"State Of Haryana Through ... vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-28T12:15:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-through-vs-santro-devi-and-others-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana Through … vs Santro Devi And Others on 24 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16246","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=16246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}