{"id":18974,"date":"2009-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-13T02:46:50","modified_gmt":"2015-03-12T21:16:50","slug":"bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007                             {1}\n\n\nIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                                R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007\n                                Date of Decision:August 05 , 2009\n\n\nBhim Singh\n\n\n                                            ---Appellant\n\n\n                   versus\n\n\n\nHaryana State and others\n\n\n                                            ---Respondents\n\nCoram:       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n                 ***\n<\/pre>\n
Present:     Mr. S.K.Yadav,Advocate,\n             for the appellant\n\n                   ***\n\nSABINA J.\n\n<\/pre>\n
             Plaintiff – Bhim Singh had filed a suit for declaration. Civil<\/p>\n
Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon,        vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
5.5.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff being time barred. Aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment           and decree dated<\/p>\n
27.8.2007. Hence, the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:-<\/p>\n
             “Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff\/appellant
\n R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007                               {2}<\/p>\n
           filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the adverse remarks<\/p>\n
           communicated to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2 vide letter<\/p>\n
           dated 7.8.1996 for the year 1995-96 are quite illegal, unlawful,<\/p>\n
           ultra vires, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice,<\/p>\n
           equity and good conscience and are not binding on the plaintiff<\/p>\n
           on the grounds mentioned in the plaint and are liable to be<\/p>\n
           expunged and if during the pendency of the suit, the defendant<\/p>\n
           No. 3 chances to reject the representation, the same may kindly<\/p>\n
           be declared as illegal.\n<\/p>\n
                           It is inter alia alleged that the defendant No. 2 vide<\/p>\n
           letter dated 7.8.1996 had communicated the following illegal<\/p>\n
           and unlawful adverse remarks to the plaintiff for the year 1995-<\/p>\n
           96:-\n<\/p>\n
           (i)Over all assessment             :      Average\n\n           (ii)Integrity                      :      Doubtful\n\n           (iii)Adverse remarks               :      Does not take interest in\n\n             on the record                           his work.\n\n<\/pre>\n
           and the above mentioned adverse remarks were quite hollow<\/p>\n
           being based on surmises and conjectures and there was no<\/p>\n
           reason and material in possession of the recording authority to<\/p>\n
           record such like adverse remarks and the adverse remarks were<\/p>\n
           against the well settled law of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana<\/p>\n
           High court as laid down in RSJ 2002 Vol.II, pages 109 and 115<\/p>\n
           and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as laid down in SLR 1997<\/p>\n
           Vol.II, page 311 in which it has been mentioned that the<\/p>\n
           recording authority must be fair and honest in the assessment of
\n R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007                           {3}<\/p>\n
           work and conduct of its employees and the remarks should be<\/p>\n
           recorded in a constructive manner and it was submitted that no<\/p>\n
           complaint was ever inquired into by the recording authority, no<\/p>\n
           explanation of the plaintiff was ever called for and the perusal<\/p>\n
           of the adverse remarks revealed beyond any shadow of doubt<\/p>\n
           that the recording authority has not given the passing reference<\/p>\n
           of the material on the basis of which such adverse remarks have<\/p>\n
           been recorded and in the absence of the same, the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
           deprived of to make any effective representation against these<\/p>\n
           remarks and the plaintiff being aggrieved of the adverse<\/p>\n
           remarks had made representation to defendant No. 3 within the<\/p>\n
           time in the year 1997 and the same had not been disposed of by<\/p>\n
           the defendant No. 3 and the delay in disposal of the same<\/p>\n
           under the well settled law makes the adverse remarks as nonest<\/p>\n
           and vitiated in the eyes of law and plaintiff requested the<\/p>\n
           defendants several time orally but the defendants did not pay<\/p>\n
           nay heed to his request. Hence, the present suit.<\/p>\n
                         On notice, the defendants put in appearance and<\/p>\n
           filed their written statement and tool some preliminary<\/p>\n
           objections that the plaintiff has not locus standi and cause of<\/p>\n
           action to file the suit and the plaintiff has concealed the real<\/p>\n
           facts and has not come to the court with clean hands and the<\/p>\n
           suit is not maintainable in the present form and the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
           not availed the alternate remedy of appeal before the competent<\/p>\n
           appellate authority so the suit is liable to be dismissed and the<\/p>\n
           suit is hopelessly time barred.       In reply on merits, the
\n R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007                          {4}<\/p>\n
           allegations were again controverted while submitting that the<\/p>\n
           adverse remarks were recorded on the basis of his work and<\/p>\n
           conduct during the period under report and since the work,<\/p>\n
           conduct and performance of the plaintiff was not found<\/p>\n
           satisfactory and up to the required norms and standard and the<\/p>\n
           plaintiff   had   committed   many   irregularities   and   mis-<\/p>\n
           appropriation during the year and so, the competent authority<\/p>\n
           had rightly recorded adverse remarks against the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
           the adverse remarks were conveyed to the plaintiff vide memo<\/p>\n
           No. 14704 dated 7.8.1996 under proper receipt and it was<\/p>\n
           denied that the adverse remarks were based on surmises and<\/p>\n
           conjectures and there was sufficient material against the<\/p>\n
           plaintiff and it was further submitted that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
           committed fraud, amounting to Rs. 128\/- on 13.5.1995 which<\/p>\n
           was also recorded in his annual confidential report for the year<\/p>\n
           1995-96 and the case of fraud was proper and fair enquiry was<\/p>\n
           conducted by the competent authority and the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
           found guilty of the charges levelled against him and the<\/p>\n
           competent authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of<\/p>\n
           two increments without cumulative effect and suspension<\/p>\n
           period was restricted for the period 17.5.1995 to 21.8.1995 to<\/p>\n
           the emoluments already drawn by him vide memo No. 17110<\/p>\n
           dated 18.9.1997 and the plaintiff remained willful absent on<\/p>\n
           21.12.1995 and thus, 200 Kms were missed and thus, he has<\/p>\n
           caused loss to Government and in this case also fair and proper<\/p>\n
           enquiry was conducted and charges levelled against him were
\n R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007                            {5}<\/p>\n
           fully established by the Enquiry Officer and the competent<\/p>\n
           authority passed the order of      censure of his services and<\/p>\n
           suspension period was       also restricted to the subsistence<\/p>\n
           allowance vide memo No. 10862\/ECC dated 29.6.1998 and the<\/p>\n
           aforesaid cases were noted specifically in the ACR which was<\/p>\n
           recorded as doubtful in view of the rules and instructions<\/p>\n
           applicable upon the plaintiff as per the settled law and it was<\/p>\n
           further submitted that the annual confidential report was rightly<\/p>\n
           recorded by the competent authority.         While denying other<\/p>\n
           allegations, the dismissal of the suit was prayed for.”<\/p>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following<\/p>\n
issues:-\n<\/p>\n
           “(1)Whether the adverse remarks communicated to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
           by defendant No. 2 vide his letter No. 14707 dated 7.8.1996 for<\/p>\n
           the year 1995-96 are quite illegal, unlawful, ultra vires ,<\/p>\n
           arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice, equity and<\/p>\n
           good conscience and not binding on the plaintiff on the grounds<\/p>\n
           mentioned in the plaint?OPP<\/p>\n
           (2)Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to<\/p>\n
           file the present suit?OPD<\/p>\n
           (3)Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material<\/p>\n
           facts from the court? OPD<\/p>\n
           (4)Whether the suit is not6 maintainable? OPD<\/p>\n
           (5)Whether the suit is time barred?OPD<\/p>\n
           (6)Whether the plaintiff has not availed the alternate remedy<\/p>\n
             of Appeal before the competent appellate authority so the
\n R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007                               {6}<\/p>\n
               suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD<\/p>\n
             (7)Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out.<\/p>\n
             Plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the adverse remarks<\/p>\n
communicated to him vide letter dated 7.8.1996 for the year 1995-96.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff instituted the suit on 7.11.2005. Plaintiff could challenge the<\/p>\n
adverse remarks communicated to him within a period of three years.<\/p>\n
However, the suit was filed by the plaintiff after a long delay.<\/p>\n
             Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of The State of Punjab<\/p>\n
and others v. Gurdev Singh Ashok Kumar<\/a> 1991(5) SLR 1 has held as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
             ” 4.   First of all, to say that the suit is not governed by the law<\/p>\n
             of Limitation runs afoul of our Limitation Act. The statute of<\/p>\n
             limitation was intended to provide a time limit for all suits<\/p>\n
             conceivable. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that a<\/p>\n
             suit, appeal or application instituted after the prescribed<\/p>\n
             “period of Limitation” must subject to the provisions of<\/p>\n
             Sections 4 to 24 be dismissed although limitation has not been<\/p>\n
             set up as a defence.      Section 2 (J) defines the expression<\/p>\n
             “period of limitation” to mean the period of limitation<\/p>\n
             prescribed in the Schedule for suit, appeal of application.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Section 2 (J) also defines “prescribed period” to mean the<\/p>\n
             period of limitation computed in accordance with the<\/p>\n
             provisions of the Act. The Court’s function on the presentation<\/p>\n
             of plaint is simply to examine whether, on the assumed facts,
\n R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007                            {7}<\/p>\n
           the plaintiff is within time. The court has to find out “when the<\/p>\n
           right to sue” accrued to the plaintiff. If a suit is not covered<\/p>\n
           by any of the specific articles prescribing a period of limitation,<\/p>\n
           it must fall within the residuary article. The purpose of the<\/p>\n
           residuary article is to provide for cases which could not be<\/p>\n
           covered by any other provision in the Limitation Act. The<\/p>\n
           residuary article is applicable to every variety of suits not<\/p>\n
           otherwise provided for. Article 113 (corresponding to Article<\/p>\n
           120 of the Act 1908) is a residuary Article for cases not<\/p>\n
           covered by any other provisions in the Act. It prescribes a<\/p>\n
           period of three years when the right to sue accrues.        Under<\/p>\n
           Article 120 it was six years which has been reduced to three<\/p>\n
           years under Article 113. According to the third column in<\/p>\n
           Article 113, time commences to run when the right to sue<\/p>\n
           accrues. The words ” right to sue” ordinarily mean the right to<\/p>\n
           seek relief by means of legal proceedings. Generally, the right<\/p>\n
           to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises, that is, the<\/p>\n
           right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit<\/p>\n
           must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is<\/p>\n
           infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to<\/p>\n
           infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is<\/p>\n
           instituted (see : (i) Mt. Bole v. Mt.Koklam and others(AIR<\/p>\n
           1930 P.C. 270) and (ii) Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. The<\/p>\n
           Union of India (AIR<\/a> 1970 S.C. 1433).\n<\/p>\n
           11.                The Allahabad High         Court    in Jagdish<\/p>\n
           Prasad Mathur and ors. vs. United Provinces Government (AIR
\n R.S.A.No.<\/a> 3086 of 2007                               {8}<\/p>\n
               1956 All 114) has taken the view that a suit for declaration by a<\/p>\n
               dismissed employee on the ground that his dismissal is void, is<\/p>\n
               governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act. A similar view<\/p>\n
               has been taken by Oudh Chief Court in Abdul Vakil vs.<\/p>\n
               Secretary of State and anr. (AIR 1943 Oudh 368). That in our<\/p>\n
               opinion is the correct view to be taken. A suit for declaration<\/p>\n
               that an order of dismissal or termination from service passed<\/p>\n
               against the plaintiff is wrongful, illegal or ultra vires      is<\/p>\n
               governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The decision to<\/p>\n
               the contrary taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in<\/p>\n
               these and other cases (State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh<\/a> (1988(1)<\/p>\n
               SLR 96) and (ii) State of Punjab v. Ram Singh<\/a> (1986(3) SLR<\/p>\n
               379) is not correct and stands overruled.”\n<\/p>\n
               Courts below had rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
time barred.\n<\/p>\n
               No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for<\/p>\n
consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                     (SABINA)
\n                                                       JUDGE
\nAUGUST 05, 2009
\nparamjit
\n R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007   {9}\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009 R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3086 of 2007 Date of Decision:August 05 , 2009 Bhim Singh —Appellant versus Haryana State and others —Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: […]<\/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-18974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 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\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-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=\"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-12T21:16:50+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T21:16:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1778,\"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\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T21:16:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 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":"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 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\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-12T21:16:50+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T21:16:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009"},"wordCount":1778,"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\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009","name":"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T21:16:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhim-singh-vs-haryana-state-and-others-on-5-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhim Singh vs Haryana State And Others on 5 August, 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\/18974","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=18974"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18974\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}