{"id":200291,"date":"1975-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975"},"modified":"2015-10-08T15:49:03","modified_gmt":"2015-10-08T10:19:03","slug":"t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975","title":{"rendered":"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 367, \t\t 1976 SCR (2) 716<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nT. R. SHARMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPRITHVI SINGH & ANR. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/11\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR  367\t\t  1976 SCR  (2) 716\n 1976 SCC  (1) 226\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1976 SC1199\t (8)\n F\t    1989 SC1985\t (5,6,7)\n\n\nACT:\n     Punjab Civil  Service Rules,  rr. 3,  12 and  3, 14 (a)\n(2)-Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     While holding the post of Agricultural Inspector in the\nAgricultural Department, the appellant was appointed against\na temporary  post of Block development and Panchayat officer\nin  the\t  Development  Department  of  the  State,  and\t was\nconfirmed in  that post with effect from April 1, 1964. As a\nresult of  the partition  of Punjab,  the appellant  and the\nrespondents (who  were also  Agricultural  Inspectors)\twere\nallocated to  the State\t of Haryana. On February 26, 1969 at\nthe request  of\t the  appellant,  the  Governor\t of  Haryana\ndeconfirmed the appellant from the post of Block Development\nand Panchayat  officer with effect from that date. On March.\n20,  1969,  the\t Governor  passed  an  order  promoting\t the\nappellant  temporarily\t as  District  Agricultural  officer\ndescribing him\tas \"Agricultural  Inspector, now  working as\nBlock Development and Panchayat officer\".\n     The respondents  challenged the  order,  and  the\tHigh\nCourt  allowed\t their\twrit   petition\t holding   that\t the\nappellant's lien  on the post of Agricultural Inspector-from\nwhich post  alone he could have been promoted to the post of\nDistrict Agricultural officer-automatically stood terminated\nunder  r.   3.12  Punjab.   Civil  Service   Rules,  on\t his\nconfirmation as Block Development officer.\n     Allowing the appeal to this Court,\n^\n     HELD: Under r. 3. 12 normally, a Government servant, on\nsubstantive appointment\t to any\t permanent post,  acquires a\nlien on\t that post  and ceases\tto hold\t any lien previously\nacquired on  any other\tpost. But,  the opening words of the\nrule show  that\t it  would  apply  unless  it  is  otherwise\nprovided in  the Rules. Rule 3.14 (a) (2) provides otherwise\nby carving  out an  exception. It  provides that a competent\nauthority shall\t suspend the lien of a Government servant on\na permanent  post which\t he holds  substantively, if  he  is\nappointed in  d substantive  capacity to  a  permanent\tpost\noutside the  cadre on  which he is borne. When the appellant\nwas appointed  as Block Development and Panchayat officer in\na substantive  permanent capacity,  his case  fell  squarely\nwithin the  ambit of  r. `3  14(a) (2) as, the post of Block\nDevelopment and\t Panchayat officer  was outside the cadre of\nAgricultural Inspectors to which the appellant belonged. The\nuse of\tthe word  \"shall\" in cl. (a)  against the use of the\nword \"may\"  in cl.  (b)\t of  the  rule\tshows  that  it\t was\nimperative for\tthe competent  authority to suspend the lien\nof the\tappellant on  the  permanent  post  of\tAgricultural\nInspector which\t he held substantively. He should not suffer\nbecause of  the competent authority's failure to do so. [720\nE, H, 721 A]\n     Further, under  r. 3.15,  in a  case covered by r. 3.14\n(a) (2)\t the suspended lien of a Government servant may not,\nexcept on  the written request of the Government servant,`be\nterminated while  he remains  in Government  service; but no\nwritten request was made by the appellant in the presnt case\nfor  terminating   his\tsuspended   lien  on   the  post  of\nAgricultural Inspector. [712-B, C]\n     Therefore, when  the Governor deconfirmed the appellant\nfrom the  post of  Block Development  and Panchayat officer,\nthe  suspended\t lien  of  the\tappellant  on  the  post  of\nAgriculture  Inspector\t stood\trevived\t  with\teffect\tfrom\nFebruary  26,\t1969,  and   his  promotion  in\t his  parent\nAgricultural  Department   from\t the  post  of\tAgricultural\nInspector to  that of  District Agricultural  officer by the\nimpugned order,\t does not  suffer from\tany legal infirmity.\n[721-D-E]\n717\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL. APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos.\t 354
\nand A 355 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     From the Judgment dated 28th October 1970 of the Punjab
\nand Haryana  High Court at Chandigarh in L.P.As. Nos. 85 and
\n86\/70.\n<\/p>\n
     M. N.  Phadke, P.\tC. Bhartari  and K.  K. John for the
\nAppellant (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
     S. K.  Mehta, K.  R. Nagaraja, M. Qarnaruddin and P. N.
\nPuri for Respondent No. 1 (In CA 354) and Respondents Nos. 1
\nand 2 (in C.A. 355)
\n     Naunit Lal\t and R.\t N. Sachthey  for Respondent 2 in CA
\n354 and respondent 3 in CA 355.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KHANNA, J.-This`judgment  would dispose  of  two  civil
\nappeals Nos.  354 and  355 of  1971 which have been filed on
\ncertificate by\tTuhi Ram  Sharma appellant  against the Full
\nBench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  joined service as Agricultural Inspector
\nin the Agricultural Department of Punjab Government in 1945.
\nTeja  Singh,   Bhale  Ram   and\t Prithvi   Singh  joined  as
\nAgricultural Inspector\tin the\tsaid Agricultural Department
\non different  dates between 1950 and 1958. The appellant was
\nconfirmed as Agricultural Inspector in 1959. On May 20, 1961
\nthe appellant  was appointed  against a\t temporary  post  of
\nBlock Development  and Panchayat  officer in the Development
\nDepartment of the State. By order dated October 28, 1966 the
\nappellant was  made substantive\t permanent Block Development
\nand Panchayat officer with effect
\nfrom April  1, 1964.  As a result of partition of Punjab the
\nappellant as well as Teja Singh, Bhale Ram and Prithvi Singh
\nwere allocated to the State of Haryana. On February 26, 1969
\nthe Governor  of Haryana  passed an  order deconfirming\t the
\nappellant on  his request from the post of Block Development
\nand Panchayat  officer with  effect from that date. On March
\n20, 1969  the Governor\tof Haryana passed the impugned order
\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Governor\t of Haryana  is pleased\t to  promote
\n     temporarily  Shri\t Tuhi\tRam   Sharma,\tAgricultural
\n     Inspector,\t now   working\tas   Block  Development\t and
\n     Panchayat officer\tas District  Agricultural officer in
\n     H.A.S. Class  IT subject to the approval of the Haryana
\n     Public Service  Commission and to post him at Rohtak in
\n     place of  Shri  Narain  Singh  who\t is  transferred  to
\n     Narnaul as\t District Agricultural officer, Shri Prithvi
\n     Singh who\tis working  against  the  post\tof  District
\n     Agricultural officer,  Narnaul is\treverted to the post
\n     of Agricultural Inspector being the junior-most.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
718<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  The character\t roll file  of Shri  Tuhi Ram in two
\n     parts is  sent herewith.  Its  receipt  may  please  be
\n     acknowledged.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Two writ  petitions were  filed praying\t the quashing of the
\nabove  order.  one  petition  was  filed  by  Prithvi  Singh
\nrespondent and\tthe other  was filed  by Bhale\tRam and Teja
\nSingh respondents.  Learned single  Judge (Tuli\t J.) as\t per
\njudgment dated\tJanuary\t 30,  1970  allowed  both  the\twrit
\npetitions and  quashed the  impugned order  on the following
\ntwo grounds:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(i) the  impugned  promotion\t had  been  made  in
\n\t       violation of  the mandatory  requirements  of
\n\t       rule 7  of the  Haryana Agricultural  Service
\n\t       Class II\t Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called the
\n\t       1947 rules)  which required appointment being
\n\t       made to the service by promotion by selection
\n\t       on the  advice of  Haryana  Public  Ser\tvice
\n\t       Commission  inasmuch   as  Sharma   had\tbeen
\n\t       promoted without\t obtaining the advice of the
\n\t       Commission which\t head to be taken before the
\n\t       selection for  promotion was  made,  and\t not
\n\t       after having promoted Sharma, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) in view of the binding earlier Division Bench
\n\t       judgment of this Court in Labhu Ram & ors. v.
\n\t       The State  of Punjab and Ors.<\/a> 1968 S.L.R. 319
\n\t       it  was\t held  that   Sharma  had   on\t his
\n\t       confirmation   as   Block   Development\t and
\n\t       Panchayat officer  on October  28, 1966 (with
\n\t       effect from  April 1,  1964, vide Annexure A)
\n\t       in the  Development Department of the Haryana
\n\t       State, ceased  to be  a member of the Haryana
\n\t       Agricultural Service from which post alone he
\n\t       could have  been\t promoted  to  the  post  in
\n\t       question,  and\this  lien  on  the  post  of
\n\t       Agricultural  Inspector\tautomatically  stood
\n\t       terminated under\t Rule  3.12  of\t the  Punjab
\n\t       Civil Services Rules Volume I, Part I.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was\talso observed  by learned  single Judge that but for
\nthe earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Labhu Ram
\n& Ors.\tv. State  of Punjab,<\/a>  he would have been inclined to
\nhold in\t favour of  Sharma appellant  on  the  second  point
\nmentioned above.  Four Letters\tPatent\tappeals\t were  filed
\nagainst the  judgment of  the single  Judge.  Two  of  those
\nappeals were  by Sharma\t appellant, while the other two were
\nfiled by  the State of Haryana. When the appeals came up for
\nhearing\t before\t the  Division\tBench,\tthe  learned  Judges
\nreferred the  matter to\t the Full Bench. In the meantime, on
\nMarch 5,  1970 the  Governor of Haryana in consuitation with
\nthe  Haryana   Public  Service\tCommission  promoted  Sharma
\nappellant as  District Agricultural  officer in\t Class II on
\nregular basis  and posted him as such with effect from April
\n1, 1969.  All the learned Judges constituting the Full Bench
\nheld that  the first  ground on which the impugned order had
\nbeen quashed, namely, non-procuring of the advance advice of
\nthe
\n719<\/span>
\nHaryana Public\tService Commission  was not well founded. It
\nwas also  observed that\t the earlier  case of  Labhu Ram was
\nclearly distinguishable-and had no bearing. By a majority of
\ntwo to\tone the Full Bench upheld the judgment of the single
\nJudge on  the second  ground, namely,  that the\t lien of the
\nappellant  on\tthe  post   of\tAgricultural  Inspector\t had
\nautomatically been terminated.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  the above  conclusion of  the majority which has
\nbeen as- . sailed in these two appeals before us.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Phadke\t on behalf of the appellants has invited our
\nattention to  the relevant  rules on  the  subject  and\t has
\ncontended that the conclusion of the majority of the learned
\nJudges of  the Full  Bench that the lien of the appellant on
\nthe post  of Agricultural  Inspector had stood terminated is
\nnot  well-founded.   As\t against   that,  Mr.  Nagaraja\t has
\ncanvassed for  the correctness\tof the\tabove  view  of\t the
\nlearned Judges\tof the High Court. After hearing the learned
\ncounsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is
\nconsiderable merit in the contention of Mr. Phadke.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  at the  outset reproduce  the relevant rules of
\nthe  Punjab  Civil  Service  Rules,  Volume  I,\t Part  I  as
\napplicable to the State of  Haryana:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3.12. Unless in any case it be otherwise provided
\n     in these  Rules, a\t Government servant  on\t substantive
\n     appoint appointment  to any  permanent post  acquires a
\n     lien on that post and cases to hold any lien previously
\n     acquired on any other post. E,
\n\t  3.14. (a)  A competent authority shall suspend the
\n     lien of a Government servant on a permanent. post which
\n     he\t holds\tsubstantively;\tif  he\tis  appointed  in  a
\n     substantive capacity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1)  ………… …… ……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  to a  permanent post  outside  the  cadre  on
\n\t       which he is borne, or
\n\t  (3)  …………. …… ……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       …… …… ……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       …… …… …… .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  3.15. (a) Except as provided in clause (c) of this
\n     rule  and\t in  note  under  rule\t3.13,  a  Government
\n     servant’s lien  on a  post may, in no circumstances, be
\n     terminated, even  with his\t consent, if the result will
\n     be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon
\n     a permanent post.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) In  a case covered by sub-clause (2) of clause\n<\/p>\n
     (a)
\n      of rule 3.14 the suspended lien may not, except on the
\n      written  request of  the Government servant concerned,
\nbe
\n720<\/span>
\n     terminated while  the  Government\tservant\t remains  in
\n     Government service.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (c)  Notwithstanding\t the  provisions   of\trule
\n     3.14(a), the  r lien  of a\t Government servant  holding
\n     substantively a  permanent\t post  shall  be  terminated
\n     while on  refused\tleave  granted\tafter  the  date  of
\n     compulsory\t retirement  under  rule  8.21;\t or  on\t his
\n     appointment substantively to the post of Chief Engineer
\n     of the Public Works Department.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Note.-In a  case covered by rule 3.14(a)(2), where
\n     a Government  servant is  appointed  in  a\t substantive
\n     capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which
\n     he is   borne,  rule 3.15(b)  precludes permanently the
\n     termination of  his suspended  lien unless\t and until a
\n     written request  to this  effect is  received from him.
\n     The result is that it is possible for such a Government
\n     servant to\t stop his  suspended lien being removed from
\n     the  parent   cadre  indefinitely\t and,\tthus   cause
\n     inconvenience to  the parent  office. Such\t a situation
\n     may be  met by appropriate executive action being taken
\n     by the  controlling officer who may re fuse his consent
\n     to such  a\t Government  servant  being  can  firmed  or
\n     retained in  a permanent  post outside his cadre unless
\n     he agrees to his lien on a permanent post in his parent
\n     office being terminated.”\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Judges constituting  the majority  of\t the
\nFull Bench  3: in  holding that\t the appellant’s lien on the
\npost of\t Agricultural Inspector\t had stood terminated relied
\nupon rule  3.12.  Perusal  of  the  above  rule\t shows\tthat
\nnormally a  Government servant on substantive appointment to
\nany permanent  post acquires  a lien on that post and ceases
\nto hold\t any lien previously acquired on any other post. The
\nopening words of the above rule, however, show that it would
\napply unless  it be  otherwise provided\t in the\t rules. Rule
\n3.14(a)(2) carves  out an  exception  to  the  general\trule
\ncontained in  rule 3.12.  According to\trule  3.14(a)(2),  a
\ncompetent authority  shall suspend  the lien of a Government
\nservant on a permanent post. which he holds substantively if
\nhe is  appointed in  a substantive  capacity to\t a permanent
\npost outside  the cadre\t on which  he  is  borne.  When\t the
\nappellant was  appointed was Block Development and Panchayat
\nofficer\t in  a\tsubstantive  permanent\tcapacity,  his\tcase
\nsquarely fell  within the  ambit of  rule 3.14(a)(2)  as the
\npost of\t Block Development and Panchayat officer was outside
\nthe cadre  of Agricultural Inspectors to which the appellant
\nbelonged: In  the circumstances,  it was  imperative for the
\ncompetent authority  to suspend the lien of the appellant on
\nthe permanent  post of\tAgricultural Inspector\twhich he had
\nheld substantively. The competent authority, however, failed
\nto suspend  the\t lien  of  the\tappellant  on  the  post  of
\nAgricultural Inspector.\t The appellant plainly cannot suffer
\nbecause of  such inaction  or omission\ton the\tpart of\t the
\ncompetent authority.  A reading\t of the rule leaves no doubt
\nthat a duty is cast upon the competent
\n721<\/span>
\nauthority to  suspend the  lien of a Government servant on a
\npermanent  post\t which\the  holds  substantively  if  he  is
\nappointed in  a substantive  capacity to  a  permanent\tpost
\noutside the  cadre on  which he\t is  borne.  The  imperative
\nnature of  the rule  is also  clear from the use of the word
\n“shall” in  clause (a)\tas against the use of the word “may”
\nin clause  (b) of  that rule. The appellant, in our opinion,
\ncannot be penalised because of the omission of the competent
\nauthority to  it in accordance with the mandatory provisions
\nof rule\t 3.14 (a)(2).  Clause (b) of rule 3.15 also makes it
\nclear that in a case covered by sub-clause (2) of clause (a)
\nof rule\t 3.14, the  suspended lien of the Government servant
\nconcerned may  not, except  on the  written request  of that
\nGovernment  servant,  be  terminated  while  he\t remains  in
\nGovernment service. The note to rule 3.15 shows a way out in
\ncase  any  difficulty  is  experienced\ton  account  of\t the
\noperation of  rule 3.14(a) (2). It is nobody’s case that any
\nwritten request\t was made  by the  appellant for terminating
\nhis suspended lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector. As
\nsuch, we  find it  difficult to\t uphold the  finding of\t the
\nmajority of  the  learned  Judges  that\t the.  lien  of\t the
\nappellant on  the post\tof Agricultural\t Inspector had stood
\nterminated. In\tour opinion,  the third Judge who was in the
\nminority took  a correct view of the matter when he observed
\nthat the  Government servant  is not  to  be  penalised\t and
\ncannot be  deprived of\tthe safeguards provided by rule 3.14
\nbecause of  the fact  that the\tcompetent authority  had not
\ntaken the necessary steps.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  Governor has deconfirmed the appellant from the
\npost  of   Block  Development  and  Panchayat  officer,\t the
\nsuspended lien\tof the appellant on the post of Agricultural
\nInspector would\t stand revived with effect from February 26,
\n1969.  The   promotion\tof   the  appellant  in\t the  parent
\nAgricultural  Department   from\t the  post  of\tAgricultural
\nInspector to  that of  District Agricultural  officer by the
\nimpugned order cannot in the circumstances be held to suffer
\nfrom any legal infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
     We accordingly  accept the\t two appeals,  set aside the
\njudgments of the learned single Judge and the Full Bench and
\ndismiss the writ petitions filed by Prithvi Singh, Bhale Ram
\nand Teja Singh respondents. The parties in the circumstances
\nshall bear their own costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals allowed\n722<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 367, 1976 SCR (2) 716 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: T. R. SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: PRITHVI SINGH & ANR. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/11\/1975 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nT. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975 - 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\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-08T10:19:03+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T10:19:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2077,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975\",\"name\":\"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T10:19:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975 - 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\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-08T10:19:03+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975","datePublished":"1975-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T10:19:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975"},"wordCount":2077,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975","name":"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T10:19:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-sharma-vs-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-on-17-november-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. R. Sharma vs Prithvi Singh & Anr. Etc on 17 November, 1975"}]},{"@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\/200291","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=200291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200291\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}