{"id":18810,"date":"2011-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-13T15:52:39","modified_gmt":"2015-10-13T10:22:39","slug":"tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n<pre>*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                           Date of Decision : 8th April, 2011\n\n+                     W.P.(C) No. 3711\/2010\n\n        TEIN SINGH DAHIYA                        ..... Petitioner\n                      Through:        Mr.S.S.Pandey with\n                                      Mr.Santosh Kumar,\n                                      Advocates.\n                   versus\n\n        UOI &amp; ORS.                           .... Respondents\n                        Through:      Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj,\n                                      Advocate for Mr.Jitender\n                                      Chaudhary, Advocate.\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.      The undisputed fact is that the petitioner was enrolled<br \/>\nin the Indian Army on 9.3.1987 as a Havildar Clerk (GD) and<br \/>\nafter completing Basic Training was paid salary in acting<br \/>\nrank of Havildar w.e.f. 23.06.1988 with ante-dated seniority<br \/>\neffective from 26.03.1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      Deputed as a Clerk in the Quarter Master Section of<br \/>\n7015      Combined    Workshop       EME,   on   29.07.1988,        the<br \/>\npetitioner was assigned additional duties as Coy Clerk of<br \/>\nRecovery Company on 13.06.1990. Having become due for<br \/>\ngrant of substantive rank of Havildar w.e.f. 1.3.1990,<br \/>\npetitioner was granted said substantive rank on 8.7.1990.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(C) 3711\/2010                                             Page 1 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n<p> 3.    In August 1990, the Commanding Officer of 7015<br \/>\nCombined Workshop EME summarily tried the petitioner for<br \/>\nan offence punishable under Section 41 of the Army Act and<br \/>\nfor unexplainable reasons awarded punishment of reduction<br \/>\nto the rank of Sepoy, little realizing that a penalty of<br \/>\nreduction in rank cannot be given effect to when a person<br \/>\nhas earned no promotion.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    Realizing that the penalty levied was incapable of<br \/>\nbeing given effect to, inasmuch as a direct entrant to a post<br \/>\ncannot be reduced to a rank of a lower post, rather than<br \/>\nsubstitute the penalty with such penalty which was capable<br \/>\nof being inflicted upon, the respondents let the matter rest<br \/>\nas it was.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    The result was that the petitioner continued to receive<br \/>\nsalary and work as a Havildar; in the acting rank thereof. He<br \/>\ncontinued to receive salary as a Havildar till the respondents<br \/>\nsuperannuated the petitioner on 31.10.2009 and proceeded<br \/>\nto recover `88,936\/- from the final dues payable to the<br \/>\npetitioner on the ground that while reducing the petitioner<br \/>\nto a post of Sepoy inadvertently higher wages in the rank of<br \/>\nHavildar was paid to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    The petitioner has a two-fold grievance. Firstly, of<br \/>\n`88,936\/- being deducted from the dues payable to him and<br \/>\nsecond of not being granted extension in service of two<br \/>\nyears.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    Suffice would it be to state that as per the extension<br \/>\npolicy dated 21.9.1998 petitioner would be entitled to serve<br \/>\nfor another two years if he had no Red Ink Entry entered in<br \/>\nhis service book. A Black Ink Entry would have enabled him<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(C) 3711\/2010                                       Page 2 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n for service being extended for two years.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    In a nutshell, what the petitioner claims is that the<br \/>\npenalty in question is non-est. It was rightly not given effect<br \/>\nto. For the reason it was never given effect to, the petitioner<br \/>\nnever exercised his rights to question the same. Even<br \/>\notherwise, the penalty cannot be given effect to. No person<br \/>\ncan be visited with the penalty of being reduced in rank to a<br \/>\npost lower than at which the person entered. At best,<br \/>\npunishment entered has to be treated as a Black Ink Entry.<br \/>\nThis is what the petitioner urges.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    Let us have a look to the counter affidavit filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   In the brief facts, in para 1, it is stated that the<br \/>\npetitioner was enrolled in the Army Corps as a direct entry<br \/>\nHavildar and after successful completion of Military Training<br \/>\nwas promoted to the rank of paid acting Havildar.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   Learned counsel for the respondents expresses regret<br \/>\nat the use of the expression &#8220;promoted&#8221; in the counter<br \/>\naffidavit and concedes that it is a deliberate attempt to lay<br \/>\nground to the fact that the petitioner entered service in a<br \/>\nlower post and thus penalty of reduction in rank could be<br \/>\ninflicted. Counsel concedes that under the Indian Army,<br \/>\npersons are given an acting rank for a while to see whether<br \/>\nthey are worth of the rank held and upon proof of<br \/>\nworthiness are confirmed against the rank. Thus, the<br \/>\nquestion of anyone being promoted from the rank of paid<br \/>\nHavildar to a Havildar does not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   Learned counsel for the respondent further concedes<br \/>\nthat in para 2 of the counter affidavit filed it is wrongly<br \/>\npleaded that as a result of the penalty the petitioner was<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(C) 3711\/2010                                            Page 3 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n reverted to the substantive rank of Sepoy.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.   Let us reproduce the averments made in the para 2 of<br \/>\nthe counter affidavit for the reason we find the same to be<br \/>\nself-contradictory. They read as under :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        &#8220;That on 11 July 1990, while serving with 7015<br \/>\n        EME       Bn,   the   individual   was     sentenced    to<br \/>\n        &#8220;Deprivation of Acting rank by reducing to<br \/>\n        substantive rank&#8221; for an officer committed by<br \/>\n        him under Army Act Section 41 by the then<br \/>\n        Commanding Officer 7015 comb Wksp and (02E)<br \/>\n        part II Order No 02E\/063\/0001\/1990. Accordingly<br \/>\n        the individual was reverted to the substantive<br \/>\n        rank of Sepoy. However since the individual was<br \/>\n        a direct entry Havildar, he was again promoted to<br \/>\n        the rank of paid acting Havildar with effect from<br \/>\n        11 July 1993. The individual was screened by a<br \/>\n        duly constituted screening Board held at EME<br \/>\n        records during 10 July 2007, however he was not<br \/>\n        granted extension of service being not eligible for<br \/>\n        grant of extension of two years of service as he<br \/>\n        was not meeting the disciplinary criteria in terms<br \/>\n        of Para 2(d) (ii) of Appendix \u201eA\u201f and Annexure to<br \/>\n        Appendix \u201eA\u201f of Integranted HQ if MoD (Army)<br \/>\n        letter     No    B\/33098\/AG\/PS-2         (c)   dated   21<br \/>\n        September 1998.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>14.   We are surprised that in the second sentence of the<br \/>\nparagraph it is pleaded: &#8220;Accordingly the individual was<br \/>\nreverted to the substantive rank of Sepoy.&#8221; Soon thereafter<br \/>\nin the very next sentence it is pleaded : &#8220;However since the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(C) 3711\/2010                                                Page 4 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n individual was a direct entry Havildar, he was again<br \/>\npromoted to the rank of paid acting Havildar with effect<br \/>\nfrom 11 July 1993.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>15.   There is a contradiction in the second and third<br \/>\nsentence of the paragraph. Admitting, all throughout the<br \/>\npetitioner received salary in the rank of Havildar, but in para<br \/>\n6 to 9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that this was<br \/>\nerroneous. Thereafter, it is sought to be justified that<br \/>\n`88,936\/- were liable to be recovered inasmuch as this was<br \/>\nthe excess amount received by the petitioner as Havildar.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.   The pleadings in the counter affidavit read a very sorry<br \/>\npicture of the affairs in the legal department of the Indian<br \/>\nArmy and we expect better standards from the office of the<br \/>\nJudge Advocate General.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.   Be that as it may, the position therefore would be, that<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent concedes that petitioner<br \/>\nis a direct entry in the rank of Havildar and thus could not<br \/>\nbe visited with the penalty of reduction in rank. Counsel<br \/>\nconcedes that the penalty levied is incapable of being<br \/>\ninflicted.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.   Counsel requests that the department be permitted to<br \/>\nlevy an appropriate penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.   It is too late in the day for the department to levy an<br \/>\nappropriate penalty. The wrong committed in 1990 cannot<br \/>\nbe permitted to be corrected after 21 years. That apart,<br \/>\nwhatever would be the penalty levied it would have to be a<br \/>\npenalty equivalent to or less than the penalty of reduction in<br \/>\nrank. In such scenario the petitioner would certainly be<br \/>\nentitled to a refund of `88,936\/- illegally deducted from the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(C) 3711\/2010                                        Page 5 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n terminal dues paid to him. It is not in dispute that a Black<br \/>\nInk Entry would not debar the petitioner to have his service<br \/>\nextended by two years. Thus, even we were to permit the<br \/>\nrespondents to levy penalty other than that of a reduction in<br \/>\nrank, as of today, the penalty which could be levied would<br \/>\nbe that of a reprimand or a warning i.e. a Black Ink Entry<br \/>\nwhich would not come in the way of the petitioner to have<br \/>\nhis service extended by two years.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.   We would have appreciated the respondents to have<br \/>\ntaken corrective action when file was taken up pertaining to<br \/>\npetitioner\u201fs service be extended by two years. At that stage<br \/>\nthe department realized that the penalty levied upon the<br \/>\npetitioner in the year 1990 was not given effect to. It<br \/>\nrealized that the penalty was incapable of being given effect<br \/>\nto. Yet, in spite of such realization, the respondents chose to<br \/>\nact illegally by treating the penalty as operative and<br \/>\ndeducting `88,936\/- on the ground that this was the excess<br \/>\namount paid to the petitioner who otherwise was required to<br \/>\nbe reduced in rank, an act or action which law did not<br \/>\npermit.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.   Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration<br \/>\nfrom this Court that he would be entitled to serve for<br \/>\nanother two years i.e. up to 31.10.2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.   Since the petitioner has been held entitled to serve till<br \/>\n31.10.2011 we dispose of the writ petition directing the<br \/>\nrespondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner as a<br \/>\nHavildar and permit the petitioner to serve as a Havildar till<br \/>\n31.10.2011. We declare that no amount is liable to be<br \/>\ndeducted from the dues payable to the petitioner. Since we<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(C) 3711\/2010                                        Page 6 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n are reinstating the petitioner, the question of his receiving<br \/>\nthe balance terminal dues at this stage does not arise and<br \/>\nthus we direct that the terminal dues paid to the petitioner<br \/>\nwould be returned by him to the department upon the<br \/>\ndepartment        simultaneously    reinstating   the   petitioner.<br \/>\nNeedless to       state, when the petitioner would           finally<br \/>\nsuperannuate terminal dues will be paid to him and no<br \/>\nmoney, much less than `88,936\/- would be deducted on the<br \/>\nground that in the past excess salary was paid to the<br \/>\npetitioner. Petitioner would be entitled to back wages and<br \/>\nbenefit of continuity in service.\n<\/p>\n<p>23.   The petitioner would be entitled to costs in sum of<br \/>\n`5,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                     PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J<\/p>\n<p>                                     SURESH KAIT, J<\/p>\n<p>APRIL 08, 2011<br \/>\nvld<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(C) 3711\/2010                                            Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 8th April, 2011 + W.P.(C) No. 3711\/2010 TEIN SINGH DAHIYA &#8230;.. Petitioner Through: Mr.S.S.Pandey with Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advocates. versus UOI &amp; ORS. &#8230;. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-13T10:22:39+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\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-13T10:22:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1562,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-13T10:22:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-13T10:22:39+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\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-13T10:22:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011"},"wordCount":1562,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011","name":"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-13T10:22:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tein-singh-dahiya-vs-uoi-ors-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tein Singh Dahiya vs Uoi &amp; Ors. on 8 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/18810","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=18810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}