{"id":192420,"date":"2009-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-09T18:12:04","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T12:42:04","slug":"state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009<\/div>\n
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                AT CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n       (1) R.S.A. No. 1869 of 2005\n\n                        .....\n\n    State of Haryana and others.\n\n                                    ....... Appellants through Shri\n                                            O.P.Sharma, Additional\n                                            Advocate General,\n                                            Haryana.\n\n            Versus\n\n    Risala Ram Saini.\n                                    ....... Respondent through Shri\n                                            J.C.Verma, Senior Advocate\n                                            with Ms.Meenakshi\n                                            Verma,Advocate.\n\n\n      (2)      R.S.A. No. 3311 of 2005\n\n                        .....\n\n    Risala Ram Saini.\n                                    ....... Appellant through Shri\n                                            J.C.Verma, Senior Advocate\n                                            with Ms.Meenakshi\n                                            Verma,Advocate.\n\n             Versus\n\n\n    State of Haryana and others.\n\n                                    ....... Respondents through Shri\n                                            O.P.Sharma, Additional\n                                            Advocate General,\n                                            Haryana.\n\n\n                                Date of Decision: 27.01.2009\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER\n\n                        ....\n\n    1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to\n       see the judgment?\n                              R.S.A.No.1869 of 2005\n\n                                        -2-\n\n                                        ....\n\n\n             2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n             3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n                                 ....\n\nMahesh Grover,J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This judgment will dispose of the above-mentioned two<\/p>\n
Regular Second Appeals which have been directed against judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 4.4.2005 passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter<\/p>\n
described as `the First Appellate Court’) vide which the appeals preferred by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and the defendants against the judgment & decree dated<\/p>\n
15.11.2003 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh (referred to<\/p>\n
hereinafter as `the trial Court’) were dismissed.<\/p>\n
             Plaintiff-Risala Ram Saini filed a civil suit seeking his retiral<\/p>\n
benefits, which, according to him, were wrongly withheld by the<\/p>\n
functionaries of the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
             If the pleadings of the parties are to be seen, there is a complete<\/p>\n
convergence of the factual aspect of the matter.<\/p>\n
             The plaintiff served as a Clerk in Private Aided School, namely,<\/p>\n
Janta High School, Kaul,District Kaithal, with effect from 12.10.1968 till<\/p>\n
31.5.1990 when the said school was taken over by the State Government.<\/p>\n
He, thereafter, served in that school till the time he retired from service on<\/p>\n
30.11.1997. Prior to his joining Private Aided School, he was in government<\/p>\n
service as Clerk and had served in Government High School, Gagsina,<\/p>\n
District Karnal from 30.8.1965 to 3.8.1966 and in Government High<\/p>\n
School, Rajound, District Karnal, from 12.9.1966 to 9.10.1968. It was the<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiff that after retirement, he was entitled to pension, gratuity
\n                             R.S.A.No.1869 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ….\n<\/p>\n
\nand salary of 300 days on account of leave encashment, which was denied<\/p>\n
to him. It was his pleaded case that he was entitled to these benefits if the<\/p>\n
period of service rendered by him in Private Aided School was counted.<\/p>\n
             In their written statement, the defendants – State of Haryana<\/p>\n
and its functionaries, denied the claim as set up by the plaintiff by pleading<\/p>\n
that the period of service rendered by him in a Private Aided School could<\/p>\n
not be taken into consideration for the purposes of retiral benefits.<\/p>\n
             Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-<\/p>\n
             1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed<\/p>\n
               for?OPP<\/p>\n
             2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as<\/p>\n
               prayed for?OPP<\/p>\n
             3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD<\/p>\n
             4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct<\/p>\n
               to file the present suit?OPD<\/p>\n
             5. Whether the suit is within limitation?OPD<\/p>\n
             6. Relief.\n<\/p>\n
            The trial Court, while determining the controversy, held that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of pension, but declined his prayer in so<\/p>\n
far as the claim of gratuity and leave encashment etc. was concerned as it<\/p>\n
was belated and beyond the period of limitation.<\/p>\n
            Dis-satisfied with the findings recorded by the trial Court, both<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and the defendants filed separate appeals which were dismissed<\/p>\n
by the First Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
                            R.S.A.No.1869 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                     -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ….\n<\/p>\n
\n            This has resulted in the instant Regular Second Appeals as both<\/p>\n
are disgruntled with the findings recorded by the Courts below.<\/p>\n
            Learned State counsel contended that the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
entitled to the benefit of pension and the service rendered by him in the<\/p>\n
Private Aided School prior to its being taken over by the government in the<\/p>\n
year 1990 could not be considered for reckoning the same for grant of<\/p>\n
pension and other benefits. Reliance was placed on Chander Sain Versus<\/p>\n
State of Haryana and others, 1994(1) S.C.C. 750 and Bikram Singh Versus<\/p>\n
State of Punjab, 1996(1) S.C.T. 161 (P&H).\n<\/p>\n
             It was contended with reference to paragraph 4 of the judgment<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court in Chander Sain’ case (supra) that the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
entitled to the benefit of service rendered by him in the Private Aided<\/p>\n
School. The relevant observations made by their Lordships in the said<\/p>\n
paragraph are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Similarly in the matter of pension, we find that the staff of the<\/p>\n
            college before it was taken over were not entitled to pension<\/p>\n
            but were having provident fund by way of retirement benefit.<\/p>\n
            The appellant is, therefore, entitled to claim provident fund<\/p>\n
            benefit for the period of service rendered by him prior to the<\/p>\n
            taking over of the college by the State,and for the period<\/p>\n
            subsequent to the said take-over, he is entitled to pension in<\/p>\n
            accordance with the service rules of the State.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In so far as the judgment in Bikram Singh’s case (supra) upon<\/p>\n
which reliance was placed by the Courts below while granting the benefit of
\n                             R.S.A.No.1869 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ….\n<\/p>\n
\ngratuity etc., is concerned, learned State counsel contended that the<\/p>\n
petitioners in that case were working as teachers in the schools run by<\/p>\n
Local Bodies\/ District Boards which were statutory in nature and, therefore,<\/p>\n
the same could not be compared with the case in hand as in the instant case,<\/p>\n
it was a Private Aided School having no concern with any District Board or<\/p>\n
Local Body. It was then contended that the findings recorded by the Courts<\/p>\n
below are erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
contended that the pension which has been ordered to be paid to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff by the Courts below is perfectly justified as the service rendered by<\/p>\n
him in the Private Aided School had to be reckoned for the purpose of<\/p>\n
grant of pension and other retiral benefits. Reliance was placed on Amarjit<\/p>\n
Kaur versus State of Punjab through Secretary, Higher Education,<\/p>\n
Punjab,Chd., 1995(1) S.C.T. 449 (P&H).\n<\/p>\n
            It was next contended that the statutory benefits, such as the<\/p>\n
gratuity and leave encashment, also had to be granted in accordance with<\/p>\n
the existing rules and the findings of the Courts below that the claim of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in that regard was beyond the period of limitation is erroneous.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the<\/p>\n
statement of     DW1-Shamsher Singh Jang Bahadur revealed that the<\/p>\n
functionaries of the State Government themselves had been considering the<\/p>\n
matter after the year 2000 and, therefore, the suit filed in the year 2002<\/p>\n
could not be said to be belated. In any eventuality, there was no order<\/p>\n
which was passed by the functionaries of the State Government from where
\n                             R.S.A.No.1869 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ….\n<\/p>\n
\nit could be said that the period of limitation would commence.<\/p>\n
            Lastly, it was contended that the retiral benefits are not in the<\/p>\n
nature of bounty and the State is under a bounden duty to release the same<\/p>\n
to an employee on his retirement from service. Reliance was placed on<\/p>\n
Chander Sain Versus State of Haryana and others (supra).<\/p>\n
            I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have<\/p>\n
perused the whole record.\n<\/p>\n
            The foremost question to be considered is as to whether the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is entitled to the grant of pension etc. by counting the service<\/p>\n
rendered by him in the Private Aided School prior to its being taken over by<\/p>\n
the State Government. The clincher in this issue would be the case of an<\/p>\n
employee, who was similarly situated as the plaintiff and who was<\/p>\n
concededly granted the benefits by the defendants.<\/p>\n
            DW1-     Shamsher     Singh     Jang    Bahadur,   Head   Master,<\/p>\n
Government High School, Kaul, Kaithal, who was produced as a witness by<\/p>\n
the defendants, testified that one Ram Sarup, who was similarly placed as<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, was granted the retiral benefits by counting his service<\/p>\n
rendered in a Private Aided School and that the matter went up to the Apex<\/p>\n
Court by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal and the grant of<\/p>\n
benefits to him was approved by dismissing that petition which was<\/p>\n
preferred by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
            During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff<\/p>\n
produced a copy of judgment dated 20.9.1996 in R.S.A. No.2224 of 1996<\/p>\n
which was filed in the case of above said Ram Sarup. While dismissing the
\n                             R.S.A.No.1869 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                      -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ….\n<\/p>\n
\naforesaid appeal filed by the State of Haryana, a learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Amarjit Kaur’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) and it was held that the service rendered by an incumbent in a<\/p>\n
Private Aided School before its take-over by the State Government was to<\/p>\n
be considered for grant of pensionary benefits.<\/p>\n
            Therefore, there is little hesitation to hold that the findings<\/p>\n
recorded by the Courts below on this aspect need to be affirmed. Denial of<\/p>\n
this benefit to the plaintiff would be perpetuating the discriminatory attitude<\/p>\n
of the defendants as they can not discriminate between two similarly<\/p>\n
situated employees. Such an action necessarily has to be held to be hit by<\/p>\n
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
            Since the appeal of the State and its functionaries is confined to<\/p>\n
this aspect of the matter, the same essentially has to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
            The next question that is to be considered is as to whether the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment which<\/p>\n
was declined to him on the ground of it being barred by limitation.<\/p>\n
            A perusal of the testimony of DW1-Shamsher Singh Jang<\/p>\n
Bahadur shows that no decision on the issue of payment of gratuity etc. to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was taken till May,2000 and that some portion of the gratuity<\/p>\n
was released to him in March,2002.\n<\/p>\n
            The retiral benefits which become due to an employee on his<\/p>\n
attaining the age of superannuation are not be treated as a charity by the<\/p>\n
employer. It is a part of the life long earning of an incumbent and cannot be<\/p>\n
withheld by the employer unless it is justified by cogent reasons.\n<\/p>\n
                               R.S.A.No.1869 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                        -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        ….\n<\/p>\n
\n             The facts of the instant case reveal that the plaintiff retired<\/p>\n
from service in the year 1997 and for no apparent reason, the benefits were<\/p>\n
withheld up to the year 2002 when only a part of the gratuity was released<\/p>\n
to him. He was also constrained to file a suit in the year 2002 for the<\/p>\n
release of such benefits which cannot be termed to be belated or barred by<\/p>\n
limitation for the reason that the State itself conceded to his claim, though<\/p>\n
not in entirety in 2002. This itself became the cause of action for the<\/p>\n
appellant. The functionaries of the State Government were totally<\/p>\n
unjustified in refusing these benefits to the plaintiff, especially when they<\/p>\n
were conscious of a decision in Ram Sarup’s case (supra), who was<\/p>\n
admittedly an employee similarly situated as the plaintiff and who was<\/p>\n
granted the same benefits by considering his previous service in Private<\/p>\n
Aided School.\n<\/p>\n
             The judgments of the Courts which are handed down, are<\/p>\n
meant to illuminate the minds of the various functionaries of the State and<\/p>\n
they, while taking a cue from them, have to act as a benevolent employer<\/p>\n
and not to sleep over the matter so as to thwart the rightful claims of its<\/p>\n
employees, who, after serving them, superannuate.<\/p>\n
             In the instant case, the findings of the Courts below in the wake<\/p>\n
of the statement of DW1-Shamsher Singh Jang Bahadur are, therefore,<\/p>\n
totally unjustified in so far as they deny the benefit gratuity etc. to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
             Therefore, the appeal of the plaintiff, being R.S.A.No.3311 of<\/p>\n
2005, raises the following question of law:-\n<\/p>\n
                             R.S.A.No.1869 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n             “(i) Whether the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment<\/p>\n
             could be denied to the plaintiff on the ground of delay and<\/p>\n
             laches when no order was passed warranting commencement of<\/p>\n
             the period of limitation?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii) Whether the grant of benefits to one similarly situated<\/p>\n
             employee while denying the same to another employee is<\/p>\n
             discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
             India?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             On the basis of the discussion made above, I am of the<\/p>\n
considered opinion that in view of the detailed facts as narrated in the<\/p>\n
foregoing paragraphs, the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment could<\/p>\n
not be withheld from the plaintiff and the observation of the Courts below<\/p>\n
that the prayer in this regard was made belatedly is incorrect.<\/p>\n
             The questions of law, as aforesaid, are answered in favour of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff in the foregoing discussion.\n<\/p>\n
             In the result, R.S.A.No.1869 of         2005 is dismissed and<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.3311 of 2005 is allowed and it is directed that the benefits of<\/p>\n
gratuity and leave encashment shall be paid to the plaintiff along with<\/p>\n
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of<\/p>\n
actual payment, by counting his service rendered in the Private Aided<\/p>\n
School.\n<\/p>\n
January 27,2009                                  ( Mahesh Grover )\n\"SCM\"                                                Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) R.S.A. No. 1869 of 2005 ….. State of Haryana and others. ……. Appellants through Shri O.P.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Versus Risala Ram Saini. ……. Respondent through Shri […]<\/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-192420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 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-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-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 And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-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=\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T12:42:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T12:42:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2085,\"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\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T12:42:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 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 And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 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-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T12:42:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T12:42:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009"},"wordCount":2085,"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\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009","name":"State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T12:42:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-and-others-vs-risala-ram-saini-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana And Others vs Risala Ram Saini on 27 January, 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\/192420","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=192420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}