{"id":173011,"date":"2009-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-17T17:52:42","modified_gmt":"2015-12-17T12:22:42","slug":"megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                              1\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH\n\n                               C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)\n                               Date of Decision : 25.2.2009\n\nMegh Raj                                          ...Petitioner\n\n                   Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab & Ors.                        ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
\n       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA<\/p>\n
Present:    Mr. D.V.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with
\n            Ms. Mamta Rana, Advocate,
\n            for the petitioners, in CWP Nos.6542 of 2007
\n            and 6543 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with
\n            M\/s R.D.Bawa, Randhir Bawa,
\n            C.S.Rana, Samuel Gill and
\n            Ms. Ratna Shri, Advocates for the petitioner,
\n            in CWP Nos.6857 of 2007 and 686 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
            Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl. AG, Punjab,
\n            for respondent-State of Punjab.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Rajiv Raina, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
            Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate,
\n            for Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. N.S.Virk, Advocate,
\n            for UPSC.\n<\/p>\n
T.S.Thakur, C.J. (ORAL)<\/p>\n
            This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.6542 of<\/p>\n
2007, 6543 of 2007, 6857 of 2007 and 686 of 2008, which raise common<\/p>\n
questions of law, touching the legality of the seniority-list finalized and<\/p>\n
circulated by the State Government by its orders dated 4.4.2007 and
\n C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
13.4.2007 respectively.       The dispute primarily relates to the<\/p>\n
determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees<\/p>\n
appointed by a process of nomination and selection. The petitioners, who<\/p>\n
happen to be promotee officers, appointed by nomination from various<\/p>\n
Registers, maintained under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, are<\/p>\n
dissatisfied with the norms adopted for determination of their inter se<\/p>\n
seniority vis-a vis. the respondents, who happen to be direct recruits. The<\/p>\n
dispute and the resultant litigation has a chequered history. It all started<\/p>\n
as early as on 18.3.1993, when a final seniority list of Officers appointed<\/p>\n
upto the year 1985 was finalized and circulated by the Government. The<\/p>\n
petitioner-promotee officers were in that list and the list that was<\/p>\n
circulated subsequently on 1.7.1994 regarding direct recruits of 1986<\/p>\n
batch, placed above the respondent-direct recruits. Aggrieved by the said<\/p>\n
placement the direct recruits filed Civil Writ Petition No.16516 of 1995,<\/p>\n
inter alia, contending that the determination of the seniority ought to be<\/p>\n
strictly as per the roster provided in Rules 18 and 21 of Punjab Civil<\/p>\n
Services (Executive Branch), Rules, 1976.      The said writ petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court by an order dated 8.12.1999,<\/p>\n
holding that Rule 18 of the Rules mentioned above, only provided for the<\/p>\n
roster for appointment and did not regulate the fixation of the seniority.<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge noted that the seniority of those appointed<\/p>\n
under the said Rules was to be determined by reference to Rule 21 of the<\/p>\n
Rules having regard to the date of appointment, which implied the date of<\/p>\n
actual appointment and not necessarily the order in which appointments<\/p>\n
were made under Rule 18.\n<\/p>\n
            Dissatisfied with the view taken by the learned Single Judge,
\n C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
the direct recruits preferred LPA No.1705 of 2000 which failed and was<\/p>\n
dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12.12.2000.<\/p>\n
Against the said order, the direct recruits filed an appeal before the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C.A.No.6373<\/p>\n
of 2001 titled Arvinder Singh Bains Vs. State of Punjab), which was<\/p>\n
eventually disposed of by an order dated 24.5.2006. After a review of the<\/p>\n
case law on the subject as also the service Rules regulating the service<\/p>\n
conditions of those in Punjab Civil Services their Lordships came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the seniority of Officers recruited to the service from<\/p>\n
different Registers had to be determined as per the order prescribed in<\/p>\n
Rule 18 read with Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive<\/p>\n
Branch) Class-I, Rules 1976.      This would, declared their Lordships,<\/p>\n
imply that the seniority will have to be as per the Roster allocated to each<\/p>\n
Register maintained under the said Rules. Having said so, the seniority-<\/p>\n
lists earlier circulated by the Government were set aside and the matter<\/p>\n
remitted back to the Government for preparation of a composite fresh<\/p>\n
seniority-list assigning positions to the direct recruits and the promotees<\/p>\n
with consequential benefits, keeping in view the observations made in the<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
            In obedience to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
Court, the State Government issued a tentative seniority list dated<\/p>\n
15.12.2006 in which it placed the direct recruits and the promotees as per<\/p>\n
the Roster points stipulated under Rule 18 of the Rules mentioned above.<\/p>\n
The petitioners, so also others were dissatisfied with that placement, to<\/p>\n
which they filed objections, which were examined by the Government but<\/p>\n
turned down by an order dated 4.4.2007 culminating in the circulation of
\n C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
final seniority list on 13.4.2007 impugned in the present petitions.<\/p>\n
            We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a<\/p>\n
considerable length and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
            Several contentions were urged by learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the parties in support of their respective cases.         It is, however,<\/p>\n
unnecessary for us to either, refer to the said contentions or to deal with<\/p>\n
the same on merits. We say so because in the course of their submissions<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were due to<\/p>\n
retire within a period of less than 2 years or so and that since their<\/p>\n
reversion had been stayed in terms of the order passed by this Court, as<\/p>\n
modified by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they would be<\/p>\n
satisfied, if they were allowed to continue so long as there are vacancies<\/p>\n
available in the Indian Administrative Service of Punjab Cadre. It was<\/p>\n
pointed out that while Sh. Surjit Singh, petitioner, in Civil writ petition<\/p>\n
No. 6543 of 2007 would be superannuating on 31.7.2009, Sh. Megh Raj,<\/p>\n
petitioner, in Civil Writ Petition No. 6542 of 2007 would be<\/p>\n
superannuating on 31.7.2010. Similarly Sh. Bhagwant Singh, petitioner,<\/p>\n
in Civil Writ Petition No.6857 of 2007 would be superannuating on<\/p>\n
31.11.2010 while Sh. Khushi Ram, petitioner, in Civil Writ Petition<\/p>\n
No.686 of 2008 on 31.1.2011. It was submitted that this Court had on<\/p>\n
15.10.2007 while admitting Civil Writ Petition No.6542 of 2007 directed<\/p>\n
that the selection process could go on but the petitioner in that case shall<\/p>\n
not be reverted till further orders. Similar orders were passed in the<\/p>\n
remaining writ petitions also from time to time. Pursuant to the said<\/p>\n
orders and with a view to continuing the selection process the Union<\/p>\n
Public Service Commission had convened a meeting on 25.2.2008 to
\n C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
make selections to the Indian Administrative Service Punjab Cadre and<\/p>\n
selected six candidates found suitable for appointment.       The interim<\/p>\n
orders issued by this Court were, however, modified by this Court by<\/p>\n
order dated 3.4.2008 to the effect that since six respondents had been<\/p>\n
selected for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service, the<\/p>\n
continuance of the petitioners against the posts held by them shall not<\/p>\n
affect their appointments against the available vacancies in the Cadre.<\/p>\n
            In the meantime, certain proceedings were instituted against<\/p>\n
the selection of the direct recruits even before the Central Administrative<\/p>\n
Tribunal in which certain interim orders were passed, which orders were<\/p>\n
then assailed by the petitioners in this Court. Certain interim directions<\/p>\n
protecting the petitioners against reversion in the said cases were also<\/p>\n
issued by this Court. Against all these directions the respondents-direct<\/p>\n
recruits preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in which their Lordships passed an order on 22.10.2008 to the<\/p>\n
following effect:\n<\/p>\n
            “The appeals are allowed, modifying the impugned orders of<\/p>\n
            the High Court to the following extent :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a) That portion of the impugned orders whereby and<\/p>\n
            whereunder the High Court has stayed the reversion of the<\/p>\n
            writ petitioners, who are respondents in these appeals, shall<\/p>\n
            stand vacated. However, they shall be adjusted against any<\/p>\n
            of the 12 vacancies which are stated to be existing and in<\/p>\n
            respect of which steps are being taken to send requisition to<\/p>\n
            the Union of India for making appointment.           The writ<\/p>\n
            petitioners-respondents will be entitled to continue against
\n C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
            these vacancies only till appointment against those<\/p>\n
            vacancies is notified by the Union of India.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (b) The appellants before us must be appointed to the cadre<\/p>\n
            of IAS in terms of the seniority list dated 4.4.2007.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (c) The above directions shall, however, be subject to the<\/p>\n
            ultimate result of the writ petitions which are pending before<\/p>\n
            the High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            We in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the<\/p>\n
            Constitution of India, further direct the State of Punjab to<\/p>\n
            send the requisition for filling up all the above mentioned 12<\/p>\n
            vacancies in the cadre of IAS, to the Union of India and the<\/p>\n
            Union Public Service Commission, as expeditiously as<\/p>\n
            possible and preferably within a period of three weeks from<\/p>\n
            today.   Both     Union of India and Union Public Service<\/p>\n
            Commission are hereby directed to consider the requisition<\/p>\n
            sent by the State of Punjab in respect of the aforementioned<\/p>\n
            12 vacancies as expeditiously as possible and preferably<\/p>\n
            within a period of 16 weeks from the date of communication<\/p>\n
            of the requisition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            We would request the High Court to consider the<\/p>\n
            desirability of disposing of the pending writ petitions as<\/p>\n
            expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three<\/p>\n
            weeks from today.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It is not in dispute that on account of the above protection<\/p>\n
granted to the petitioners each one of them has been allowed to continue<\/p>\n
in the Cadre against the vacancies within the quota meant for the
\n C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
promotees. It is in the back-drop of the above facts argued on behalf of<\/p>\n
the petitioners that although the process of selection and appointment<\/p>\n
against vacancies currently held by the petitioners has been initiated and<\/p>\n
is in progress, even if those selected on the basis of the said process are<\/p>\n
appointed, the petitioners can still be allowed to continue against other<\/p>\n
vacancies which have already become available or may become available<\/p>\n
within the quota meant for the promotees or direct recruits.        It was<\/p>\n
submitted that the continuance of the petitioners would not cause any<\/p>\n
inconvenience, hardship or prejudice to any one eligible for appointment<\/p>\n
against such vacancies as this Court could make it clear         that their<\/p>\n
continuance would not prevent the authorities from initiating the process<\/p>\n
of selection with regard to such vacancies or making appointments<\/p>\n
against the same. It was urged that since the petitioners have given the<\/p>\n
best years of their lives to the Civil Service and had been promoted to the<\/p>\n
Indian Administrative Service of Punjab Cadre on the basis of a seniority<\/p>\n
list which may not have found favour with the Hon’ble Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
the least that could be done was to allow them to retire without suffering<\/p>\n
the ignominy of being reverted to the lower cadre. The petitioners were<\/p>\n
on those terms willing to accept the impugned list to be valid and<\/p>\n
withdraw their challenge to the same.\n<\/p>\n
            On behalf of the respondents, it was on the other hand,<\/p>\n
submitted that while vacancies keep occurring and the process of<\/p>\n
appointment against the same is a continuing process, the limited prayer<\/p>\n
made by the petitioners could be considered, subject to the condition that<\/p>\n
their continuance would not in any manner prevent the authorities from<\/p>\n
selecting suitable candidates against any such vacancies or making
\n C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
appointments based on such selection. It was submitted that if at any<\/p>\n
stage the number of vacancies available were less than the number of<\/p>\n
petitioners, who may be allowed to continue by this Court, the junior-<\/p>\n
most person holding any such post would have to vacate. So also in case<\/p>\n
all or any of the vacancies available at any given point of time have to be<\/p>\n
filled up by making suitable selections or appointments from the relevant<\/p>\n
sources, the petitioners should have no grievance against such<\/p>\n
appointments.\n<\/p>\n
            We have given our careful consideration to the submissions<\/p>\n
made at the bar.   The challenge to the impugned seniority list is on the<\/p>\n
statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners, abandoned by the<\/p>\n
petitioners. This need not necessarily imply that the petitioners must<\/p>\n
suffer reversion or superannuation from service so long as their<\/p>\n
continuance is otherwise possible without causing any prejudice to any<\/p>\n
one else. That is the purport of the orders passed by their Lordships also<\/p>\n
no matter only as an interim measure. So long as there are vacancies<\/p>\n
available in the cadre against which the petitioners can be continued,<\/p>\n
there is no reason why they must be reverted especially when they are so<\/p>\n
close to superannuation. The continuance of the petitioners against the<\/p>\n
available vacancies or vacancies that may occur in future shall however<\/p>\n
be subject to the specific condition that such continuance will not prevent<\/p>\n
the authorities from initiating the process of selection of suitable<\/p>\n
candidates entitled to appointment against any such vacancies, nor shall it<\/p>\n
prevent the authorities from making appropriate appointment of the<\/p>\n
selected candidates in which event the petitioners or such of them as are<\/p>\n
holding the post meant for any such selected candidate shall have to
\n C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M)                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
superannuate from service as they have already crossed the age of<\/p>\n
superannuation under the Punjab Civil Services Rules. We also make it<\/p>\n
clear that the continuance of the petitioners against the available<\/p>\n
vacancies shall only be for the purposes of preventing their immediate<\/p>\n
exit from service and shall not be interpreted to have resulted in or earned<\/p>\n
any other benefit for them, which they would not otherwise be entitled to<\/p>\n
in terms of the seniority list now finalized except the right to receive the<\/p>\n
current emoluments admissible to that post. The writ petitions are with<\/p>\n
the above directions disposed of. This order shall not be taken as a<\/p>\n
precedent. All the pending CMs shall stand disposed of in terms of this<\/p>\n
order. No costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                            (T.S.THAKUR)\n                                            CHIEF JUSTICE\n\n\n\n25.2.2009                                 (HEMANT GUPTA)\nVimal                                         JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009 C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6542 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.2.2009 Megh Raj …Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & Ors. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMegh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-17T12:22:42+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-17T12:22:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2273,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-17T12:22:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-17T12:22:42+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-17T12:22:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009"},"wordCount":2273,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009","name":"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-17T12:22:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/megh-raj-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Megh Raj vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173011","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=173011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}