{"id":166234,"date":"1995-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995"},"modified":"2016-02-12T09:22:37","modified_gmt":"2016-02-12T03:52:37","slug":"dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995","title":{"rendered":"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Verma.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, M.K. Mukherjee<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDHAYANAND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/09\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, M.K. MUKHERJEE\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t    WITH<br \/>\n\t     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8219-20 OF 1995<br \/>\n       (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12116-17 of 1991)<br \/>\nMubarak Masih.,<br \/>\n\t\t\t     V.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Finance Secretary,<br \/>\nUnion Territory of Chandigarh &amp; Ors.,<br \/>\n\t\t\t    AND<br \/>\nWrit Petition (C) No. 181 of 1995<br \/>\nSh. B.P. Singh &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t     V.\n<\/p>\n<p>Union of India &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nJ.S. Verma. J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Special leave granted in special leave petitions.<br \/>\n     The only  question for  decision in  these matters is :<br \/>\nWhether the  benefit of\t earlier qualifying military service<br \/>\nas defined  in\tthe  Punjab  Government\t National  Emergency<br \/>\n(Concession) Rules,  1965 (hereinafter\treferred to as &#8220;1965<br \/>\nRules&#8221;) could  be given to the concerned employees appointed<br \/>\nafter 1.11.1966\t in the\t services of  the Union Territory of<br \/>\nChandigarh except Medical and Health services thereof? If it<br \/>\nis held that the benefit of the said rules is available also<br \/>\nto the\temployees appointed  in the  services of  the  Union<br \/>\nTerritory of  Chandigarh after\tits formation  on  1.11.1966<br \/>\nthen the  claim of each of them has to be examined on merits<br \/>\nin accordance  with the\t rules. The  Central  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana have taken<br \/>\nthe view  that these rules do not apply to appointees in the<br \/>\nservices of  the  Union\t Territory  after  1.11.1966.  These<br \/>\nmatters arise out of these decisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The only  material fact  which requires mention is that<br \/>\nthese matters  relate to  employees in\tthe services  of the<br \/>\nUnion Territory\t of Chandigarh\tall of\twhom were  appointed<br \/>\nsubsequent to  1.11.1966. They\tclaim benefit  of the Punjab<br \/>\nGovernment National  Emergency (Concession)  Rules, 1965 for<br \/>\nthe purpose  of increments, seniority, promotion and pension<br \/>\netc. in\t accordance with  the rules.  The stand of the Union<br \/>\nTerritory is that the benefit of the 1965 Rules is available<br \/>\nonly to\t the appointees\t prior to  1.11.1966 since they were<br \/>\nappointed in  the State\t of Punjab  and carry  with them the<br \/>\nbenefit which  had  already  accrued  to  them.\t It  may  be<br \/>\nmentioned that\tthe Union Territory Administration itself by<br \/>\nG.O. No.  1023-1H (7)-87\/5025  dated 19.3.1987 had taken the<br \/>\nview that the benefit of military service in accordance with<br \/>\nthese rules  would be  available to ex-servicemen who joined<br \/>\nservice in the various departments in the Union Territory of<br \/>\nChandigarh but\tsubsequently this  view was  altered in G.O.<br \/>\nNo. 27\/1\/3\/92-1H (7)\/10935 dated 2.6.1992 on reconsideration<br \/>\nof the\tmatter. This  change in\t the view  gave rise  to the<br \/>\nclaims made  by the  concerned employees in the Tribunal and<br \/>\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  context of\t applicability of  an administrative<br \/>\norder of  the Government  of State of Punjab issued prior to<br \/>\n1.11.1966 it  was held\tby this Court in State of Punjab and<br \/>\nothers Vs.  Balbir Singh  and others, 1976 (3) SCC 242, that<br \/>\nby virtue  of Section  88 of  the Punjab Reorganisation Act,<br \/>\n1966, an  administrative order\tmade by\t the erstwhile State<br \/>\ndid not\t automatically lapse  and continued  to be in force,<br \/>\neffective and binding on the successor State unless modified<br \/>\nand repudiated.\t There can  be\tno  doubt  that\t The  Punjab<br \/>\nGovernment National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 which<br \/>\nfall within  the definition of &#8220;law&#8221; in Section 2 (g) of the<br \/>\nPunjab Reorganisation  Act, 1966 continued in force and were<br \/>\neffective in  the Union\t Territory of  Chandigarh until\t and<br \/>\nunless\tmodified,   changed  or\t  repudiated  by  the  Union<br \/>\nTerritory  Administration.   The  question,   therefore,  is<br \/>\nwhether there was any modification, change or repudiation of<br \/>\nthe said  1965 Rules  by the  Union Territory administration<br \/>\nafter  1.11.1966?  It  may  be\tmentioned  that\t the  Punjab<br \/>\nRecruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 repealed the Punjab<br \/>\nGovernment National  Emergency (Concession)  Rules, 1965 but<br \/>\nthe saving  clause therein  preserved the  rights which\t had<br \/>\naccrued to  any person\tunder the  repealed rules.  All\t the<br \/>\nemployees, in  these matters  were appointed after 1.11.1966<br \/>\nbut before  the application  of\t 1982  Rules.  There  is  no<br \/>\ncontroversy that  if the 1965 Rules continued to be in force<br \/>\nin the\tUnion Territory after 1.11.1966 unless repudiated or<br \/>\nrepealed, the  concerned employees in these matters, subject<br \/>\nto fulfillment\tof the\tconditions of  eligibility under the<br \/>\n1965 Rules,  would be  entitled to its benefit. The question<br \/>\nfor consideration, therefore, is whether the 1965 Rules were<br \/>\nmodified, repudiated  or repealed  in their applicability to<br \/>\nthese employees?\n<\/p>\n<p>     The answer\t depends on the construction of Notification<br \/>\nNos. SO 3267, SO 3268 and SO 3269 all dated 1.11.1966 issued<br \/>\nby the\tGovernment of  India, Ministry\tof Home Affairs, New<br \/>\nDelhi. By  Notification No.  SO 3267 the powers conferred by<br \/>\nthe proviso  to Article\t 309  of  the  Constitution  on\t the<br \/>\nPresident of  India were  delegated to\tthe Administrator of<br \/>\nthe Union Territory of Chandigarh to make rules in regard to<br \/>\nthe matters  specified therein\twhich included the method of<br \/>\nrecruitment to\tCentral Civil  Services and posts (Class II,<br \/>\nClass III  and Class IV) under his administrative control in<br \/>\nconnection with\t the  affairs  of  the\tUnion  Territory  of<br \/>\nChandigarh and conditions of service of persons appointed to<br \/>\nsuch services  and posts  for  the  purposes  of  probation,<br \/>\nconfirmation, seniority\t and promotion.\t By Notification No.<br \/>\nSO 3268\t rules were  framed  by\t the  President\t called\t the<br \/>\nConditions of  Service\tof  Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh<br \/>\nEmployees Rules,  1966 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  &#8220;1966<br \/>\nRules&#8221;). Rule  2 therein  provided that\t the  conditions  of<br \/>\nservice of  persons appointed  to the Central Civil Services<br \/>\nand posts  Class I,  Class II,\tClass III and Class IV under<br \/>\nthe administrative control of the Administrator of the Union<br \/>\nTerritory of  Chandigarh subject to any other provision made<br \/>\nby the\tPresident was  to be  the same\tas the Conditions of<br \/>\nService of  Persons appointed to other corresponding Central<br \/>\nCivil Services. The remaining part of Rule 2 is not material<br \/>\nfor the\t present purpose.  In short, by virtue of Rule 2 the<br \/>\nRules applicable  to the  Central Civil\t Services were\tmade<br \/>\napplicable to  regulate the  conditions of  service for such<br \/>\nemployees. Rule 3 is significant. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;3.  Rules\t not   to  apply  to  matters<br \/>\n     relating  to   probation,\tconfirmation,<br \/>\n     seniority and promotion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  Nothing contained  in\t these\trules<br \/>\n     shall apply  to probation, confirmation,<br \/>\n     seniority and  promotion in  respect  of<br \/>\n     persons  in   relation   to   whom\t  the<br \/>\n     administrator   of\t   the\t said\tunion<br \/>\n     territory has  been authorised under the<br \/>\n     notification of  the Government of India<br \/>\n     in the  Ministry  of  Home\t Affairs  No.<br \/>\n     12\/1\/66-CHD (I)  dated the 1st November,<br \/>\n     1966 to  make rules under the proviso to<br \/>\n     article 309 of the Constitution.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Rule 4  contains the  provision for  repeal relating to<br \/>\nmatters for  which provision  is made  in Rule\t2.  The\t net<br \/>\nresult of  these rules contained in Notification No. SO 3268<br \/>\nis that\t employees of  the Union Territory to posts in Class<br \/>\nII, Class III and Class IV services under the administrative<br \/>\ncontrol of  the Administrator  of the  Union  Territory,  in<br \/>\nrespect of  whom the  rule making power was delegated by the<br \/>\nPresident to  the Administrator\t of the Union Territory were<br \/>\nnot to\tbe governed  by the  rules contained  in SO  3268 in<br \/>\nrespect of  matters  relating  to  probation,  confirmation,<br \/>\nseniority and  promotion. This is the effect of the combined<br \/>\nreading of  the two  notifications and the express provision<br \/>\nmade in\t Rule 3 of the 1966 Rules framed by the President by<br \/>\nNotification No.  SO 3268. In other words, by virtue of Rule<br \/>\n3 therein  the 1966  Rules had\tno application\tto the Union<br \/>\nTerritory employees  holding posts  in Class  II, Class III,<br \/>\nand Class  IV services\tin respect of the specified matters.<br \/>\nNone of\t the concerned\temployees in these matters belong to<br \/>\nClass I\t service to  whom alone the Central Civil Rules were<br \/>\nmade applicable\t by Notification  No. SO  3268 in respect of<br \/>\nmatters relating  to probation,\t confirmation, seniority and<br \/>\npromotion. The third Notification No. SO 3269 is to the same<br \/>\neffect.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is,  therefore, clear  that  the  Punjab  Government<br \/>\nNational Emergency  (Concession) Rules,\t 1965  continued  to<br \/>\napply in  the  Union  Territory\t of  Chandigarh\t even  after<br \/>\n1.11.1966 till\tmodified, changed or repudiated by the Union<br \/>\nTerritory Administration  and they continued to apply to the<br \/>\nemployees appointed  in the  Union Territory after 1.11.1966<br \/>\nwho were eligible for the benefit of those rules. This is so<br \/>\nbecause these  rules relate to matters for which the Central<br \/>\nCivil Services\tRules were not applied to employees in Class<br \/>\nII, III\t &amp; IV posts. The contrary view taken by the Tribunal<br \/>\nand the High Court cannot, therefore, be upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Consequently, the\tappeals and  the writ  petition\t are<br \/>\nallowed in  this manner.  The impugned\torders of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt and  the Tribunal\t are set  aside. The  claim  of\t the<br \/>\nconcerned employees in these matters would now be considered<br \/>\nand  decided   by  the\tUnion  Territory  Administration  in<br \/>\naccordance with the rules.\n<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/909274\/\"><\/p>\n<p>U.T. Chandigarh<br \/>\n\t\t\t     V.\n<\/p>\n<p>Natha Singh &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t   ORDER<br \/>\n     Leave<\/p>\n<p><\/a> granted.<\/p>\n<p>     We have decided the connected matters i.e. Civil Appeal<br \/>\nNo. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. of 1995 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16536 of<br \/>\n1992), <a href=\"\/doc\/210850\/\">Dhayanand  vs. Union  of India  &amp; Ors.,<\/a>\t[with  Civil<br \/>\nAppeal Nos.  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; of  1995 (arising  out of  SLP (C)<br \/>\nNos. 12116-17  of 1991)\t and Writ  Petition (C)\t No. 181  of<br \/>\n1995] by a separate judgment pronounced today, September 12,<br \/>\n1995. Because  of the  view taken  in the connected matters,<br \/>\nthis civil appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995 Author: J Verma. Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, M.K. Mukherjee PETITIONER: DHAYANAND Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/09\/1995 BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, M.K. MUKHERJEE ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8219-20 OF 1995 (arising out of [&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-166234","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>Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995 - 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\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-12T03:52:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-12T03:52:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995\"},\"wordCount\":1471,\"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\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995\",\"name\":\"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-12T03:52:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995 - 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\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-12T03:52:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995","datePublished":"1995-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-12T03:52:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995"},"wordCount":1471,"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\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995","name":"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-12T03:52:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhayanand-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-september-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhayanand vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 12 September, 1995"}]},{"@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\/166234","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=166234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}