{"id":164579,"date":"2004-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004"},"modified":"2017-05-23T02:56:40","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T21:26:40","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1168 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Punjab\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJagir Singh \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde &amp; S.B. Sinha\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>W I T H <\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2002<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThese two appeals arising out of  a common judgment and order dated<br \/>\n7.12.2000 passed  by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ<br \/>\nPetition No.8212 of  1999 involving similar questions of law and fact were taken<br \/>\nup for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tJagir Singh, the Appellantg in Civil Appeal No.1167 of 20002 will  be<br \/>\nhereinafter referred to as &#8216;the workman&#8217;; whereas the State of Punjab, Appellant<br \/>\nin Civil Appeal No.1168 of 2002, will be hereinafter referred to as  &#8216;the State&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>FACTS :\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe workman herein joined the service in the Punjab Roadways, Taran<br \/>\nTaran, in the year 1965 as a driver.  It is not in dispute that he absented himself<br \/>\nfrom duty from 2.5.1979 to 3.8.1979.  The workman did not apply for any grant<br \/>\nof  leave.  He was asked to report for duty by a registered letter dated 22.6.1979<br \/>\nbut despite the same  he did not  comply with the said request.  As regard his<br \/>\nabsence from duty, a notice was published in the newspapers but despite the same<br \/>\nhe did not join his duties within the time specified therein.  The State, therefore,<br \/>\non the ground  his being absent from duty, terminated his services with effect<br \/>\nfrom 3.8.1979.  Questioning the legality of the said order, a purported demand<br \/>\nwas raised by the workman to reinstate him in service by a letter dated 5.3.1981.<br \/>\nAn industrial dispute was raised in relation whereto, conciliation proceedings<br \/>\nwere held.  Consequent upon failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable<br \/>\nsettlement therein, the  dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the State<br \/>\npurported to be in exercise of its power under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act)  by a notification dated<br \/>\n25.8.1993 on the following :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Whether termination of the services of the workman is<br \/>\njustified and in order ?  If not, to what relief\/exact<br \/>\namount of compensation is he entitled ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe said reference was answered in favour of the workman and against the<br \/>\nState by an award dated 2.5.1997.  In terms of the award, the State was directed<br \/>\nto reinstate the workman with continuity in service and full back-wages stating :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;In view of  my findings on the aforesaid issues<br \/>\nthe workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity in<br \/>\nservice and since the workman has stated that he had<br \/>\nremained unemployed throughout, and there being no<br \/>\nevidence contradicting  above statement by management<br \/>\nin this regard, workman shall be entitled to full back-<br \/>\nwages from the date of demand notice and all allied<br \/>\nbenefits.  The reference is answered as such.  No order as<br \/>\nto costs.  The workman is directed  to report for duty<br \/>\nwithin 30 days of the   publication of the award.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe State thereafter filed a writ petition questioning the said award before<br \/>\nthe Punjab  and Haryana High Court on 2.6.1999.  The High Court by reason of<br \/>\nits impugned judgment dated 7.12.2000 allowed the writ petition in part to the<br \/>\nlimited extent that instead and place of full back-wages, the workman was held to<br \/>\nbe entitled to 60% of the back-wages, while upholding the direction for<br \/>\nreinstatement of the workman, stating :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;So far as back wages  are concerned , the Labour<br \/>\nCourt awarded full back wages from the date of demand<br \/>\nnotice.  However, it can be seen that the demand notice<br \/>\nwas issued on 5.3.1981.  Reference was made on<br \/>\n25.8.1993 and the impugned order is dated 2.5.1997.  In<br \/>\nview of this position, we restrict  back  wages to 60%<br \/>\nfrom the date of demand notice.  The writ petition<br \/>\ndeserves to be  allowed to this extent.   In the light of<br \/>\nabove discussion, this writ petition is partly allowed.  The<br \/>\nback wages are restricted to 60% only from the date of<br \/>\ndemand notice.  Rest of the prayer made in the writ<br \/>\npetition is declined.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAggrieved, both the State and the workman have filed these appeals upon<br \/>\nobtaining special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, would<br \/>\nsubmit that keeping in view the fact that the workman failed and\/or neglected to<br \/>\njoin his duties despite receipt of notice and  publication as regard  his absence<br \/>\nfrom duty in the newspapers, he was not entitled to any relief.  In such a<br \/>\nsituation, the learned counsel would contend that the provisions of the Punjab<br \/>\nCivil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970 would have no application<br \/>\ninasmuch as  no leave having been granted, the question of initiation of a<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceeding would not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman,<br \/>\nper contra, would submit that the conditions of services of the workman being<br \/>\ngoverned by the statutory rules, being the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and<br \/>\nAppeals) Rules, 1970  and the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1953, the impugned<br \/>\norder of termination has rightly been set aside by the Labour Court in view of the<br \/>\nfact that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the workman as is<br \/>\nmandatorily required under Rules 5 and 8 of 1970 Rules and Rule 3.25 of 1953<br \/>\nRules.  It was pointed out that the State&#8217;s plea of  abandonment  of service on the<br \/>\npart of the workman was also found to be incorrect.   According to the learned<br \/>\ncounsel, as no material was brought on records  by the State to show that the<br \/>\nworkman had availed of any alternative employment, the workman was entitled<br \/>\nto full back-wages from the date of issuance of the demand.  It was argued that<br \/>\nonly because more than twelve years have elapsed from the date of the demand<br \/>\nand the date of reference,  it  cannot be said that  delay was attributable to the<br \/>\nworkman  as the delay, if any,  in making the reference was on the part of the<br \/>\nState.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before adverting to the questions raised in these appeals, we may record<br \/>\nthat pursuant to the award dated 2.5.1997, the workman was reinstated in service<br \/>\nwith effect from 24.8.1999 and he reached the age of superannuation in March<br \/>\n2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>The short question, therefore, which arises for our consideration in these<br \/>\nappeals is as to whether the workman is entitled to  back-wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is not in dispute that the workman did not perform any duty since<br \/>\n2.5.1979.  The Labour Court made its award only on the ground that before<br \/>\nissuing the order of termination dated 3.8.1979, no disciplinary proceeding was<br \/>\nheld in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules and<br \/>\nfurthermore the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes<br \/>\nAct, 1947 were not complied with.  The findings of the Labour Court are<br \/>\ninconsistent with and self-contradictory.  If the services of the workman were<br \/>\nterminated for misconduct, the question of payment of any retrenchment<br \/>\ncompensation or service of  any statutory notice  would not arise.  The question<br \/>\nof compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act<br \/>\nwould arise, if the services of the concerned workman were terminated  on a<br \/>\nground  other than misconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Labour Court furthermore failed to consider the conduct of the<br \/>\nworkman in not joining to his duties despite having been asked to do so by a<br \/>\nregistered letter as well as publication of a notice in the newspapers.  While<br \/>\ndirecting grant of  back-wages, the Labour Court was required to consider the<br \/>\ntotality of the circumstance.  The conduct of the workman had also an important<br \/>\nrole to play.  The services of the workman were terminated on 3.8.1979.  He<br \/>\nmerely asked for his reinstatement in service on or about 5.3.1981.  There is<br \/>\nnothing on record to show as to when the industrial dispute was raised.  Even if<br \/>\nhe had raised an industrial dispute in 1981, it does not stand to any reason as to<br \/>\nwhy he kept mum till the reference was made in the year 1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>We may notice that in <a href=\"\/doc\/1460162\/\">Uptron India Ltd. vs. Shammi Bhan and Another<\/a><br \/>\n[(1998) 6 SCC 538], the question  as to whether a statute or a Sanding Oder<br \/>\nhaving the force of law containing the provision of automatic termination on the<br \/>\nground of overstay of the leave for a certain number of days is utra vires or not<br \/>\ncame up consideration before this Court wherein it was held that when a<br \/>\ndiscretion is conferred upon the employer to terminate or not to terminate the<br \/>\nservices of the concerned employees, principles of natural justice are ordinarily<br \/>\nrequired to be complied with.  However, as indicated hereinbefore, the conduct of<br \/>\nthe workman would play an important role  as regard direction upon the<br \/>\nemployer to pay back-wages.  In this case,  no leave was either sought for or<br \/>\ngranted.  No  material was brought on  record except the oral statement of the<br \/>\nworkman that an application for leave had been filed.  It is not in dispute that the<br \/>\nState issued a registered letter directing the workman to join his duty.  As he did<br \/>\nnot do so, notice of  his absence was published in the newspaper.  These facts<br \/>\nwould appear from the letter of termination itself which has been annexed with<br \/>\nthe Special Leave Petition filed by the workman as also his Counter  Affidavit to<br \/>\nthe Special Leave Petition filed by the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman,<br \/>\nplaced strong reliance on <a href=\"\/doc\/217291\/\">Scooters India Ltd. vs. M. Mohammad Yaqub and<br \/>\nAnother<\/a> [(2001) 1 SCC 61].  Therein, the question which arose for consideration<br \/>\nwas as to whether giving of such notices would  amount to sufficient compliance<br \/>\nof principles of natural justice or not having regard to the fact situation obtaining<br \/>\ntherein.  In paragraph 12 of the judgment it was categorically held that the<br \/>\nrecords therein indicated that no opportunity had been granted to the workman to<br \/>\njoin his duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>This Court in different decisions  applied the principles of natural justice<br \/>\nhaving regard to the fact situation obtaining therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>Indisputably, the principles of natural justice may have to be complied<br \/>\nwith having regard to the conditions of service governed by the rules framed in<br \/>\nterms of proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.  But the<br \/>\nsaid principle cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula.  It cannot be applied in a<br \/>\nvacuum without reference to the relevant fact situation.  [See Punjab and Sind<br \/>\nBank and Others Vs. Sakattar Singh, [(2001) 1 SCC 214] and Dr. Gurjeewan<br \/>\nGarewal (Mrs.) Vs. Dr. Sumitra Dash (Mrs.) and Others, [(2004) 5 SCC 263]]<\/p>\n<p> \tIn Dr. Gurjeewan Garewal (supra), this Court noticed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Recently in another case of a very similar nature <a href=\"\/doc\/433217\/\">Anil<br \/>\nBajaj (Dr.) vs. Postgraduate Institute of Medical<br \/>\nEducation &amp; Research<\/a> [(2002) 2 SCC 240] this Court<br \/>\nheld :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;A person who gets an advantage, namely,<br \/>\nof a sanction to go abroad on service on the<br \/>\ncondition that he will come back within two years<br \/>\nand if he does not come back, his lien will<br \/>\nautomatically be regarded as being terminated, he<br \/>\nthen cannot turn around and challenge the said<br \/>\ncondition on the basis of which sanction to go<br \/>\nabroad was granted.but where the facts are not<br \/>\nin dispute the inquiry would be an empty<br \/>\nformality.  In any case the principle of estoppel<br \/>\nwould clearly apply and the High Court was right<br \/>\nin dismissing the writ petition filed by the<br \/>\nappellant wherein he had challenged his<br \/>\ntermination.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSimilarly, in the case in hand the 1st respondent<br \/>\nwas originally granted an ex-India leave for two years on<br \/>\nthe express condition that she will be deemed to have<br \/>\nvacated the post if she opts not to join after the leave<br \/>\nperiod.  But she preferred to remain in the greener<br \/>\npastures for a pretty long time in spite of the repeated<br \/>\nreminders from PGIMER.  She employed the case before<br \/>\nthe High Court as a dilatory tactic to continue with her<br \/>\nforeign assignment and evaded herself from joining<br \/>\nunder some pretext or the other.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>On the aforesaid findings, this Court vacated the stay of  holding the<br \/>\ndepartmental proceeding as against the Respondent No.1 therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this case, as despite several opportunities the workman did not join his<br \/>\nduties at all, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court and the High Court<br \/>\ncommitted a manifest error in granting back-wages in his favour.\n<\/p>\n<p>As noticed hereinbefore, the letter of termination issued to the workman<br \/>\nitself suggests that such an opportunity had been granted.  We are, therefore, of<br \/>\nthe opinion that even if it is assumed that in the facts and circumstances of this<br \/>\ncase, it was obligatory on the part of the State to comply with Rules 5 and 8 of<br \/>\nthe  Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules,  the workman having<br \/>\nregard to the totality of the situation was not entitled to back-wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>We may place on record that keeping in view of the fact that the workman<br \/>\nhad already been reinstated and has since retired, it was not considered expedient<br \/>\nto go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the award directing<br \/>\nreinstatement of the workman.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the foregoing reasons, the appeal preferred by the State is allowed and<br \/>\nthat of the workman is dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1168 of 2002 PETITIONER: State of Punjab RESPONDENT: Jagir Singh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/09\/2004 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde &amp; S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-22T21:26:40+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\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T21:26:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2150,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T21:26:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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 Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-22T21:26:40+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\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T21:26:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004"},"wordCount":2150,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004","name":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T21:26:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh on 27 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/164579","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=164579"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164579\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}