{"id":170132,"date":"1988-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988"},"modified":"2016-06-16T04:18:21","modified_gmt":"2016-06-15T22:48:21","slug":"ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988","title":{"rendered":"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Anand, S. Rajendra Babu<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nEX. CAPT. R.S. DHULL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/04\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nA.S. ANAND, S. RAJENDRA BABU\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant is an Ex-Serviceman. He was accepted as a
\nTehsildar candidate  w.e.f. September  13, 1974\t and allowed
\nthe  benefit   of  military  service  for  the\tpurposes  of
\nseniority and  was assigned the deemed date of May 27, 1973.
\nIt appears  that certain adverse remarks came to be recorded
\nin his\tAnnual Confidential  Reports for  the years 1978-79,
\n1981-82, 1982-83  and 1984-85.\tThe appellant questioned the
\nadverse remarks and sought their expunction by filing a writ
\npetition in  the High  Court in\t 1987. The High Court on 2nd
\nMay, 1990  directed the expunction of the adverse entries in
\nthe Annual  Confidential Report\t of the\t appellant. The High
\nCourt also  set aside  the orders  passed by  the  competent
\nauthorities against  refusal to expunge the adverse entries.
\nThe respondents\t were directed to grant consequential relief
\nto the\tappellant. As  a consequence  of the judgment of the
\nHigh Court  dated 2nd May,  1990, the appellant was promoted
\nas a  District Revenue\tOfficer on September 29, 1991 w.e.f.
\nMarch 15,  1982. The  appellant, however,  was not satisfied
\nwith the  orders made  pursuant to  the judgment of the High
\nCourt and  he, therefore,  filed a special leave petition in
\nthis Court being S.L.P.(C)  No. 104\/92 (C.A. No. 4249\/92). A
\nBench of  this Court  granted leave  and by  an order  dated
\n12.10.92 directed  consideration of the appellant’s name for
\npromotion to  H.C.S. (Executive\t Branch) without taking into
\naccount the  expunged adverse remarks. After the judgment by
\nthis Court  rendered in\t Civil\tAppeal\tNo.4249\/92  on\t12th
\noctober, 1992  the case\t of the\t appellant was\ttaken up for
\nconsideration by the State Government and vide communication
\ndated  28th   December,\t 1992\tfrom  the  Chief  Secretary,
\nGovernment of  Haryana, Chandigarh  to the appellant, he was
\ninformed  that\t the  matter  had  been\t placed\t before\t the
\nselection committee  constituted  under\t Rule  7(1)  of\t the
\nPunjab Civil  Service (Executive  Branch)  Rules,  1930\t for
\nconsidering  his   name\t for   recruitment  to\t the  H.C.S.
\n(Executive Branch) from Register A-1 for the vacancies which
\noccurred in  the year  1980 and 1982 as also for the special
\nrecruitment to\tthe H.C.S.  (Executive Branch) held in 1983,
\nwithout taking\tinto account  the adverse  expunged remarks.
\nThe appellant  was informed that the Selection Committee had
\nconsidered his\tname for  inclusion in\tthe list  of persons
\nconsidered suitable for appointment to the H.C.s. (Executive
\nBranch) against the vacancies for the said years but that
\n\t  “The\tSelection  Committee  in
\n     its meeting  held on 16-12-1992 has
\n     found the\trecord of  other persons
\n     whose names  had been  included  in
\n     the lists,\t already prepared on 13-\n<\/p>\n
     12-1982, 17-3-1987\t and  24-2-1988,
\n     better than  yours and  has decided
\n     not to  include your  name\t in  the
\n     said lists. Since your name has not
\n     been  included   in  the\tlist  of
\n     persons  considered   suitable  for
\n     appointment  to  the  HCS(Executive
\n     Branch), you  can not be considered
\n     for   appointment\t  to   the   HCS
\n     (Executive\t Branch)   against   the
\n     vacancies of  Registrar A-1 for the
\n     years  1980,   1982   and\t special
\n     recruitment for the year 1983.”\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No.
\n6977\/93 in  the High  Court of\tPunjab and  Haryana alleging
\nthat his  name had been wrongly “excluded from consideration
\nfor appointment\t to the\t Haryana Civil Service for the years
\n1980, 1982  and 1983.” Various grounds were taken in support
\nof the\twrit petition.\tThe learned Single Judge of the High
\nCourt vide judgment dated 25th July, 1984 dismissed the writ
\npetition. In  the course  of the judgment the learned Single
\nJudge referred\tto  Rule  7  of\t the  Punjab  Civil  Service
\n(Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 as amended and applied to the
\nState of  Haryana as  well as  to a comparative chart of the
\nservice record\tof the appellant and those who were selected
\nto   the Haryana  Civil Service\t (Executive Branch)  in\t the
\nyears  1980,   1982  and  1983.\t The  learned  Single  Judge
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Learned   counsel   for   the
\n     petitioner could  not refer  to any
\n     material on the record to show that
\n     the   service    record   of    the
\n     petitioner was  better than that of
\n     the persons who hadbeen included in
\n     the list  prepared by the committee
\n     and  sent\tto  the\t commission  for
\n     Recommending  in  order  of  merit,
\n     Case   of\t  the\tpetitioner   was
\n     considered in  terms of  the  Rules
\n     ibid but  his  service  record  was
\n     not found\tbetter than  that of the
\n     candidates\t  recommended\tto   the
\n     Commission for selection. It is not
\n     the case  of  the\tpetitioner  that
\n     names   of\t   all\t the\teligible
\n     candidates were  to be  sent to the
\n     commission for selection. Rule 7 of
\n     the  Rules\t  specifically\tprovides
\n     that the  Committee shall prepare a
\n     list of  eligible candidates  equal
\n     to twice  the number  of  vacancies
\n     available\tand  this  is  precisely
\n     that was\tdone  by the  Committee.
\n     The lists prepared by the Committee
\n     were  sent\t to  be\t Commission  for
\n     recommending in  order of merit and
\n     equal to  the number  of  vacancies
\n     the   most\t   suitable   candidates
\n     entered  in   the\tlist   of  being
\n     selected as  candidates  for  entry
\n     into Register A-1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Petitioner had only a right of
\n     Consideration and his name was duly
\n     considered by the Committee. He was
\n     not  considered   suitable\t by  the
\n     Committee and  thus his  name could
\n     not be (sent to the Commission. The
\n     Government placed the record before
\n     this Court\t to   know that the case
\n     of\t  the\t petitioner   was   duly
\n     considered\t against  the  vacancies
\n     that  occurred   during  the  years
\n     1980, 1982\t and 1983  and that  his
\n     name could\t not be\t included in the
\n     list prepared by the Committee.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (Emphasis ours)
\n     A Letters\tPatent Appeal  filed against the judgment of
\nthe learned  single Judge  was dismissed  on 7th  September,
\n1984. The  Division Bench  agreed with\tthe  learned  Single
\njudge and  recorded  a\tfinding\t that  consequent  upon\t the
\nexpunction of  the  adverse remarks, the Selection Committee
\nhad considered\tthe case  of the  appellant for inclusion of
\nhis name  in the list prepared for the vacancies relating to
\nthe relevant  years  1980,  1982  and  1983  and  after\t due
\nconsideration he  was not  found suitable. The Bench rightly
\nheld that  the appellant  had only  a right of consideration
\nand since  his name  was duly considered by the High Powered
\nCommittee and  he was  not found suitable, he could not make
\nany grievance  against his  non-selection. Aggrieved  by the
\njudgment of  the Division   Bench, the present special leave
\npetition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  had filed the special leave petition in-
\nperson. We,  however, found  that  the\tquestions  requiring
\nconsideration in  the special leave petition were such which
\nrequired assistance  from  a  lawyer  and,  accordingly,  we
\ndirected the  Supreme\tCourt Legal  Services  Committee  to
\nprovide assistance  to the appellant. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,
\nlearned senior\tadvocate agreed\t to assist the Court and has
\nappeared during the proceedings in this case.\n<\/p>\n
     While this\t appeal was  pending in\t this Court  learned
\ncounsel for the State informed the Court that the petitioner
\nhad been  retired compulsorily in 1993 vide order dated 29th
\nSeptember, 1993 and, therefore, his appeal had been rendered
\ninfructuous. The  appellant, however,  submitted that he had
\nfiled a\t writ petition\tin the\thigh Court  challenging\t the
\norder of compulsory retirement (C.W.P. No. 7214\/93) and vide
\njudgment dated\t17-10-95 a  learned Single judge of the High
\nCourt had allowed the writ petition  and set aside the order
\nof compulsory  retirement.  It\ttranspires  that  a  Letters
\nPatent Appeal  filed against  that judgment  of the  learned
\nSingle Judge  by the  State was\t dismissed on  23rd of July,
\n1997. The State, thereafter, decided not to file any special
\nleave petition\tagainst the  order  of\tthe  Division  Bench
\ndismissing Letters Patent Appeal on 23rd of July, 1997. As a
\nconsequence, the  order of  compulsory\tretirement  made  on
\n29.9.93 did not survive.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Raju\t Ramachandran,\tlearned\t  senior   advocate,
\nsubmitted that\tnot only  was the  appellant entitled  to be
\ntreated in  service from  the date  when the  order  of\t his
\ncompulsory retirement  was made i.e. on 29th September, 1993
\ntill the  date he attained the age of superannuation on 29th
\nFebruary, 1996,\t but he\t was also  entitled to\treceive G.P.
\nFund and  the other  retiral benefits. It was submitted that
\neven pension  of the appellant had not been fixed and he had
\nnot been paid any pension and the State had no justification
\nto withhold  the retiral  benefits. On\t15-10-97 we made the
\nfollowing order:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “During the  course of hearing
\n     of this  special leave petition, it
\n     has  been\t submitted  by\t learned
\n     counsel  for  the\tState  that  the
\n     State   Government has  decided not
\n     to file  any special leave petition
\n     against the  order of  the Division
\n     Bench  dismissing\t Letters  Patent
\n     Appeal on 23.7.1997. It, therefore,
\n     shows that\t the order of compulsory
\n     retirement made  on 29.9.1993  does
\n     not survive,  as the  writ petition
\n     against that  order was allowed and
\n     the Letters  Patent Appeal has been
\n     dismissed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Mr.\t Raju\t  Ramcachandran,
\n     learned  senior  counsel  appearing
\n     for  the  petitioner  submits  that
\n     though    the     petitioner    has
\n     superannuated  on\t 29.2.1996,  the
\n     G.P. Fund\twas not\t released to him
\n     till  the\t High\tCourt\thad   to
\n     intervene in  the LPA  filed by the
\n     State.  It\t  is  stated   that   on
\n     22.5.1997, during\tthe pendency  of
\n     the LPA,  the High\t Court\tdirected
\n     the State\tto release the G.P. Fund
\n     of the  petitioner\t and  consequent
\n     thereupon, it has been released. It
\n     is,  however,  submitted  that  the
\n     pension of\t the petitioner\t has not
\n     been fixed\t and  he  has  not  been
\n     parts any\tpension at  all from the
\n     date he  superannuated. Withholding
\n     of pension\t is a serious matter. We
\n     view  it\twith  concern.\t Learned
\n     counsel for  the State  assures  us
\n     that  he\twill  have   the  matter
\n     examined at  priority basis.    We,
\n     therefore, direct:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  1)   The State  shall, on  the
\n     basis   of\t  the\tservice\t  record
\n     available\twith   them,\tfix  the
\n     provisional    pension    of    the
\n     petitioner and intimate the same to
\n     him within\t ten days  by registered
\n     post.  In\tcase  any  formality  is
\n     required to  be  completed\t by  the
\n     petitioner for  receiving\tpension,
\n     intimation shall be given to him in
\n     the same  communication within  ten
\n     days. Within  fifteen days from the
\n     date    of\t    receipt    of    the
\n     communication from\t the State,  the
\n     petitioner\t  shall\t   furnish   the
\n     required information,  if\tany,  as
\n     also his  response insofar\t as  the
\n     fixation of the provisional pension
\n     is concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  2) The  State shall  also,  on
\n     the  basis\t  of   the   provisional
\n     pension, work  out the  arrears  of
\n     the  pension  and\tcommunicate  the
\n     same to  the petitioner. The amount
\n     of arrears\t so calculated\tshall be
\n     paid to the petitioner on the basis
\n     of the  provisional pension  within
\n     six weeks\tfrom today.  This shall,
\n     however, be  without  prejudice  to
\n     the rights of the parties.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The provisional pension, we are informed has since been
\nfixed and is being paid to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  heard learned  counsel for  the parties on the
\nmain grievance\tof the\tappellant i.e.\t that  his name\t was
\nwrongly excluded  from consideration  for appointment to the
\nHaryana Civil  Service for the years 1980, 1982 and 1983. We
\nhave examined  the record  also. The  appellant had  only  a
\nright to  be considered\t and we\t agree both with the learned
\nSingle Judge  and the  Division bench of the High Court that
\nhis case  was  properly\t considered  ignoring  the  expunged
\nadverse entries\t made in his Annual  Confidential Reports by
\na High\tPowered Committees  but the  appellant was not found
\nsuitable  by   that  Committee\tto  be\trecommenced  to\t the
\nCommission. It\tis, therefore,\tfutile to contend that there
\nwas any\t lack of  consideration of  his\t case  or  that\t the
\nconsideration of  his case  was based  on any  irrelevant or
\ninadmissible grounds.  The record  reveals that his case was
\nconsidered  alongwith\tthe  service  record  of  the  other
\neligible candidates  who had been brought on the select list
\nand we\tare not\t pursuaded to hold that the consideration of
\nhis case suffered from any infirmity. The plea that the High
\nPowered Committee  was influenced  by the adverse entries is
\nnot correct  and deserves  a notice only to be rejected. We,
\ntherefore, do  not find\t any reason  to interfere  with\t the
\norders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in
\nthat regard.   However,\t there is  one other  aspect of\t the
\nmatter which requires our consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Raju\t Ramachandran,\t learned   senior   advocate
\nsubmitted that\tin spite  of the  orders of this Court dated
\n15-10-97 (supra)  all the  retiral benefits  have not so far
\nbeen  paid   to\t the  appellant.  He  submitted\t that  while
\nprovisional pension  has been fixed, but other benefits like
\nG.P. Fund  dues, Gratuity etc. have not so far\tbeen paid to
\nhim.  He  rightly  argued  that\t the  respondents  were\t not
\njustified to  withhold the  G.P.  Fund and the Gratuity more
\nparticularly in view of the directions given by us on 15-10-\n<\/p>\n
97. We, therefore, direct that while the case of fixation of
\nproper pension\tof the\tappellant shall\t be decided  by\t the
\nrespondents within   three  months from\t the  date  of\tthis
\norder, the  G.P.   Fund, Gratuity and other retiral benefits
\n(which remain  unpaid) shall  also be  paid to the appellant
\nwithin the  aforesaid period  of three months. The appellant
\nshall also  be entitled\t to interest  at the rate of 12% per
\nannum on  the withheld\tG.P. Fund and Gratuity etc. from the
\ndate the same became payable to him on his attaining the age
\nof superannuation till the date the payment is\tmade to him.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is thus  disposed of  in above\t terms.\t  No
\ncosts. We  wish to place on record our deep appreciation for
\nthe valuable  assistance rendered  by Mr. Raju Ramachandran,
\nlearned senior advocate to the Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988 Bench: A.S. Anand, S. Rajendra Babu PETITIONER: EX. CAPT. R.S. DHULL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/04\/1988 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, S. RAJENDRA BABU ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R Leave granted. […]<\/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-170132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nEx. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 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\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-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=\"1988-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-15T22:48:21+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=\"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\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-15T22:48:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2233,\"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\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988\",\"name\":\"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-15T22:48:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 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":"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 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\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-15T22:48:21+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988","datePublished":"1988-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-15T22:48:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988"},"wordCount":2233,"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\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988","name":"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-15T22:48:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-capt-r-s-dhull-vs-state-of-haryana-and-ors-on-21-april-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 April, 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\/170132","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=170132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170132\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}