{"id":173906,"date":"2009-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-17T00:55:20","modified_gmt":"2016-10-16T19:25:20","slug":"state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: H Dattu<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                         NON-REPORTABLE\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.3401 OF 2009\n                  (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18279 of 2008)\n\n\nState of Haryana & Ors.                                 ..........Appellant\n\n                                    Versus\n\nRameshwar Dass                                          ........Respondent\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
H.L. Dattu,J.\n<\/p>\n
    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
  1)This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment and order of<\/p>\n
   the Chandigarh High Court dated 28.8.2007 which arises in the following<\/p>\n
   circumstances. On 27.6.1984, Rameshwar Dass, respondent before us,<\/p>\n
   was appointed on the post of Fitter Coolie and subsequently his services<\/p>\n
   were regularized on 1.4.1993. Meanwhile three other employees were<\/p>\n
   appointed namely, Tej Pal, Rajinder Kumar and Dharmapal on 5.7.1984,<\/p>\n
   19.11.1984 and 20.11.1984 respectively, and were promoted on<\/p>\n
   26.3.1987 to the post of Water Pump Operator Grade-II and regularized<\/p>\n
   on 1.4.1993.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       1<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2)The respondent went before the Trial Court with the principal plea, that,<\/p>\n
he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Water Pump Operator (WPO)<\/p>\n
Grade-II from the date when his juniors were promoted to the same post<\/p>\n
and for other consequential reliefs. The claim was opposed by the State<\/p>\n
of Haryana, stating that the respondent has no locus standi for filing the<\/p>\n
suit as there is no cause of action and also it is barred by limitation. It<\/p>\n
was also alleged that the co-employees of the respondent, who have been<\/p>\n
promoted, were appointed in different circles and did not belong to the<\/p>\n
Karnal Circle, where the respondent is continuing his service. Trial Court<\/p>\n
recorded that the appellants did not produce any seniority list being<\/p>\n
maintained at Divisional Level or Circle Level which could show that Tej<\/p>\n
Pal, who was appointed just after the respondent, was not junior to the<\/p>\n
respondent on the day when he was promoted as WPO on 26.3.1987.<\/p>\n
Similarly is the case with other employees named Dharam Pal who was<\/p>\n
appointed on 20.11.1984 and Rajinder Kumar who was appointed on<\/p>\n
19.11.1984. Therefore, on the given date, respondent was senior to the<\/p>\n
other employees, who were promoted. Regarding locus standi and cause<\/p>\n
of action to file the suit is concerned, it was held that the cause of action<\/p>\n
is recurring and accrues every month when the benefit for promotion is<\/p>\n
denied to the respondent. Accordingly, the Civil Suit was dismissed by<\/p>\n
the Trial Court granting relief to the respondent herein to the extent that<\/p>\n
                                                                         2<\/span>
\nhe may be promoted to the post of WPO from 26.3.1987 and his salary<\/p>\n
accordingly be fixed.\n<\/p>\n
3)Against the said judgment the appellants went before the Appellate<\/p>\n
Court contending that the seniority of work charge employees is<\/p>\n
maintained at Divisional Office Level and that of regular employees is<\/p>\n
maintained at Circle Office Level. Since respondent and other co-<\/p>\n
employees being work charge employees, at the given time, their<\/p>\n
seniority was being maintained in respective divisions, therefore, there<\/p>\n
was no necessity of maintaining seniority in different divisions<\/p>\n
collectively.\n<\/p>\n
4)The First Appellate Court affirming the findings of the Trial Court<\/p>\n
observed that the respondent was appointed as Fitter Coolie on 28.6.1984<\/p>\n
in the Karnal division and was regularized on 22.1.1994 on the same post<\/p>\n
and other co-employees, Tej Pal was appointed as electrical helper on<\/p>\n
5.7.1984 in the Karnal division and was promoted to the post of WPO<\/p>\n
22.1.1985, but was regularized only on 1.2.1994 and Rajinder Kumar<\/p>\n
was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 19.11.1984 in the Kaithal<\/p>\n
division and was promoted to the post of WPO after being regularized on<\/p>\n
21.1.1985. The Deputy Superintendent of appellants department admitted<\/p>\n
that prior to 1998 all the employees such as Fitter Coolie, Mali-cum-<\/p>\n
                                                                    3<\/span>
\nChowkidar, Keyman etc. used to be promoted as WPO. Thus, it becomes<\/p>\n
evident that respondent was senior to other co-employees.<\/p>\n
5)Another similar case was brought to the notice of the First Appellate<\/p>\n
Court, Om Prakash Bairagi v. State of Haryana,<\/a> wherein one Chander<\/p>\n
Prakash, junior to the Om Prakash, was promoted earlier to Om Prakash<\/p>\n
as WPO. The Trial Court in the said case held that Om Prakash was<\/p>\n
entitled to be promoted to the post of WPO from the date on which his<\/p>\n
junior Chander Prakash was promoted, which was confirmed by this<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
6)The First Appellate Court after considering submissions of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the parties and documents on record, has come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the respondent ought to have been promoted from the<\/p>\n
date when his junior Tej Pal was promoted and modified the relief<\/p>\n
granted by the Trial Court to the extent that the respondent is entitled to<\/p>\n
the arrears of salary for a period of three years prior to the date of filling<\/p>\n
of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
7)The appellants then moved an appeal before the High Court inter alia<\/p>\n
challenging the correctness of the order passed by the First Appellate<\/p>\n
Court. The High Court upholding the findings of the First Appellate<\/p>\n
Court dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
8)The only point that would arise for our consideration in the present<\/p>\n
appeal is, whether the respondent is entitled for promotion and<\/p>\n
consequential benefits from the date claimed despite the fact that the<\/p>\n
employees whom the respondent is trying to compare, belong to different<\/p>\n
divisions.\n<\/p>\n
9)On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that seniority of work charge<\/p>\n
employees is maintained at Divisional office level and that of regular<\/p>\n
employees made regular from work charge cadre from time to time is<\/p>\n
maintained in Circle office level. The employees who were promoted<\/p>\n
prior to the respondent belong to different circles or divisions therefore<\/p>\n
the respondent is not entitled for any promotion.<\/p>\n
10)Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent<\/p>\n
being the senior most employee was not considered for promotion for the<\/p>\n
post of WPO while his juniors were promoted, and therefore he is<\/p>\n
entitled for the promotion and all the consequential benefits including the<\/p>\n
entire back wages.\n<\/p>\n
11)It is beyond doubt and in fact admitted by the appellants that the<\/p>\n
respondent was appointed prior to other employees but was not promoted<\/p>\n
to the post of WPO. In all the replications filed before the Courts, the<\/p>\n
appellants have mainly stressed only on the ground that the other<\/p>\n
employees, who were promoted, were appointed in different divisions<\/p>\n
                                                                        5<\/span>
\nand were promoted in those Divisions, and accordingly the claim of the<\/p>\n
respondent is not maintainable. It may be incidentally pointed out that the<\/p>\n
appellants in their petition have made some vague allegations suggesting<\/p>\n
that the respondent belongs to the work charge category and not regular<\/p>\n
employees category.\n<\/p>\n
12)The High Court while considering the submissions made by the<\/p>\n
learned Counsel for the parties to the lis has observed that nothing has<\/p>\n
been produced by the appellants which could show that the Electrical<\/p>\n
Helper, Mali-cum-Chowkidar and Filter Coolie were having separate<\/p>\n
seniority lists in the year 1987.\n<\/p>\n
13)It is evident that the appellants, while appointing the respondent and<\/p>\n
other employees, did not put them in different heads, cadres, circles or<\/p>\n
divisions, as the case may be, for the purpose of seniority. Therefore,<\/p>\n
when the appellants were giving promotions amongst the Grade IV<\/p>\n
employees for the post of WPO, they should have considered every<\/p>\n
employee, including the respondent, irrespective of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
categories and according to the seniority and past record.<\/p>\n
14)This Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Das,<\/a> (1966)<\/p>\n
2 SCR 907, has stated that the promotion to a selection post depends<\/p>\n
upon several relevant factors, the number of vacancies in the posts is one<\/p>\n
factor; the number of persons eligible for the said promotions is another<\/p>\n
                                                                       6<\/span>
\nfactor; and the seniority of the said competitors along with their past<\/p>\n
record and their merits, is yet another factor.\n<\/p>\n
15)It was also observed by this Court in the case of Brooke Bond India (P)<\/p>\n
Ltd. v. Workmen,<\/a> (1963) 1 LLJ 256, that at a given time, if more than<\/p>\n
one person are eligible for promotion, seniority should be taken into<\/p>\n
account and should prevail unless the eligible persons are not equal in<\/p>\n
merit.\n<\/p>\n
16)In the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of<\/p>\n
Maharashtra,<\/a> (1990) 2 SCC 715, wherein it has been held by this Court<\/p>\n
that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to the rules, his<\/p>\n
seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not from<\/p>\n
the date of confirmation.\n<\/p>\n
17)This Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Dinkar Sinha,<\/a> (2007) 10 SCC<\/p>\n
548, held that the seniority may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil<\/p>\n
right. Infringement of the said right would be permissible only if there<\/p>\n
exists any rules validly framed under a statute and\/or the proviso<\/p>\n
appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
18)The respondent in the present case was in no way at fault. He had<\/p>\n
served faithfully in various capacities without any blemish from<\/p>\n
27.7.1984. The treatment meted out to the respondent can be<\/p>\n
characterized as discriminatory. Thus, appellants should have promoted<\/p>\n
                                                                       7<\/span>
\n  the respondent before promoting other employees according to the<\/p>\n
  seniority of the employees.\n<\/p>\n
  19)In view of the above discussions, the appellants are directed to give<\/p>\n
  promotion to the respondent with effect from 26.03.1987 and consider<\/p>\n
  his name for further promotions and benefits on the basis of seniority.<\/p>\n
  Further appellants are directed to pay only Rs. 35000\/- in full and final<\/p>\n
  settlement for all his back wages.\n<\/p>\n
  20)With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal is dismissed. No order as<\/p>\n
  to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                            …………………………………J.
\n                                            [TARUN CHATTERJEE]<\/p>\n
                                            …………………………………J.
\n                                            [ H.L. DATTU ]
\nNew Delhi,
\nMay 08, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009 Author: H Dattu Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, H.L. Dattu NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3401 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18279 of 2008) State of Haryana & Ors. ……….Appellant Versus Rameshwar […]<\/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-173906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-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=\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-16T19:25:20+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T19:25:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1518,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T19:25:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-16T19:25:20+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T19:25:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009"},"wordCount":1518,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009","name":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T19:25:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-rameshwar-dass-on-8-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rameshwar Dass on 8 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/173906","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=173906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173906\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}