{"id":218172,"date":"1987-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987"},"modified":"2016-09-17T15:08:33","modified_gmt":"2016-09-17T09:38:33","slug":"bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987","title":{"rendered":"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2049, \t\t 1987 SCR (3) 714<\/div>\n
Author: M Thakkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/07\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 2049\t\t  1987 SCR  (3) 714\n 1987 SCC  (4) 634\t  JT 1987 (3)\t206\n 1987 SCALE  (2)160\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1988 SC1504\t (10)\n RF\t    1989 SC  19\t (27)\n F\t    1989 SC1256\t (4)\n C\t    1989 SC1308\t (8,10)\n F\t    1990 SC 883\t (7)\n RF\t    1991 SC1173\t (6)\n RF\t    1992 SC2130\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution  of  India--Arts. 14\tand  16--Doctrine  of\n\"Equal work equal pay\"--When it is established that the work\nperformed  is similar, there can be no\tdiscrimination\twith\nregard\tto scale of pay on the ground that the mode  of\t re-\ncruitment  was\tdifferent or the nature of  appointment\t was\ntemporary.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t Education Department of the State of Haryana  which\nwas  administering  Adult Education  Centres  for  providing\nfunctional literacy to illiterates in the age-group of 15-35\nyears and Non-Formal Education Centres to impart learning by\nSpecial Contact Courses to student drop-outs from schools in\nthe  age-group of 6-15 years, appointed the  petitioners  as\nsupervisors  from  time to time since the years\t 1978  on  a\nfixed  salary and continued to treat them as temporary\tgov-\nernment servants by giving them a deliberate break in  serv-\nice of one day after the lapse of every six-months. Contend-\ning  that this was violative of Arts. 14 and 16\t since\tthey\nwere discharging similar duties as other Supervisors such as\nrespondents  2-6  in the Education Department who  had\tbeen\nabsorbed  as  regular government servants,  the\t petitioners\nprayed for issue of a Writ directing the State Government to\ngive  them the same scale of pay and benefits of  continuous\nservice,  etc. by declaring them to be permanent  government\nservants.\n    The State Government contended that the petitioners were\nnot full time employees, that their mode of recruitment\t was\ndifferent  from the mode of recruitment of regular  Supervi-\nsors,  that the nature of functions discharged by  them\t was\ndifferent  from those of the latter and that they  had\tbeen\nappointed on six-monthly basis as the posts were  sanctioned\nfrom  year  to year in view of the temporary nature  of\t the\nschemes.\n    The\t documentary evidence placed on\t record\t established\nthat the petitioners were functioning as full-time  Supervi-\nsors and had been\n715\ngiven the status equivalent to masters of formal schools and\ntheir functions were also like the Block Education  Officers\nof formal schools.\nAllowing the petition partly,\n    HELD:  The\tpetitioners are entitled to be paid  on\t the\nsame basis of same pay scale as per which respondents 2 to 6\nwho are discharging similar duties as Supervisors just\tlike\nthe petitioners, are being paid.\n(i)  The Respondent-State has failed to establish  its\tplea\nthat the nature of the duties are different. In the  regular\ncadre,\tthe essential qualification for appointment is\tB.A.\nB.ED. Petitioners also possess the same qualification  viz.,\nB.A., B.ED. In fact many of them even possess higher degrees\nsuch  as M.A., M.ED. In what manner and in what respect\t are\nthe duties and functions discharged by those who are in\t the\nregular\t cadre different? The petitioners having  discharged\nthe initial burden of showing similarity in this regard, the\nburden is shifted on the Respondent-State to establish\tthat\nthese  are  dissimilar in essence and in substance.  We\t are\nunable\tto uphold the bare assertion made in this behalf  by\nthe State of Haryana in its Counter-affidavit. [723F-G]\n(ii)  So  long as the petitioners are doing  work  which  is\nsimilar\t to the work performed by respondents 2 to  6,\tfrom\nthe stand point of 'Equal work for equal pay' doctrine,\t the\npetitioners cannot be discriminated against in regard to pay\nscales. Whether equal work is put in by a candidate, select-\ned  by\ta process whereat candidates from all parts  of\t the\ncountry could have competed or whether they are elected by a\nprocess\t where candidates from only a cluster of a few\tvil-\nlages  could  have  competed is\t altogether  irrelevant\t and\nimmaterial,   for  the\tpurpose\t of  the  applicability\t  of\n'Equal work for equal pay' doctrine. A typist doing  similar\nwork  as  another typist cannot be denied equal pay  on\t the\nground that the process of selection was different  inasmuch\nas  ultimately\tthe  work done is similar and  there  is  no\nrational  ground to refuse equal pay for equal work.  It  is\nquite  possible\t that if he had to compete  with  candidates\nfrom  all over the country, he might or might not have\tbeen\nselected. It would be easier for him to be selected when the\nselection  is limited to a cluster of a few  villages.\tThat\nhowever\t is  altogether a different matter. It\tis  possible\nthat  he  might not have been selected at all if he  had  to\ncompete against\n716\ncandidates from all over the country. But once he is select-\ned,  whether he is selected by one process or the other,  he\ncannot be denied equal pay for equal work without  violating\nthe said doctrine. [723B-E]\n(iii) Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the\nSchemes\t are  temporary in nature is irrelevant once  it  is\nshown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged\nand the work done is similar and the doctrine of 'Equal\t pay\nfor equal work' is attracted. [724B-C]\n(iv) The petitioners have been appointed in the context of a\nScheme\twhich is by the very nature of things transient\t and\ntemporary. No doubt it has been extended from year to  year.\nBut  by\t the very nature and scope of the scheme,  once\t the\nobjective  of Adult Education is accomplished in  the  sense\nthat the illiterate adults of the cluster of villages become\nliterate pursuant to the education imported at the  centres,\nthe  need for adult education would  diminish  progressively\nand  ultimately\t cease.\t Having regard to  these  facts\t and\ncircumstances we do not think that the Respondent-State\t can\nbe accused of making appointments on a temporary six-months'\nbasis  with any ulterior or oblique motive. In our  opinion,\ntherefore,  the prayer of the petitioners to absorb them  as\nregular\t employees  on a permanent basis from  the  date  of\ntheir initial appointment has no justification. That however\ndoes not mean that the petitioners should be deprived of the\nlegitimate  benefits  of being fixed in a  pay-scale  corre-\nsponding  to  the one applicable to respondents 2  to  6  by\ntreating them as employees who have continued from the\tdate\nof initial appointment by disregarding the breaks which have\nbeen given on account of the peculiar nature of the  Scheme.\nWhile,\ttherefore, the petitioners cannot claim as a  matter\nof  right to be absorbed as permanent and regular  employees\nfrom the inception, they would be justified in claiming\t pay\non the basis of the length of service computed from the date\nof  their appointment depending on the length of service  by\ndisregarding the breaks which have been given for a  limited\npurpose. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the\npresent case, ends of justice would be met if the  petition-\ners are paid the difference in salaries with effect from the\ndate of the institution of the Writ Petition viz.  September\n18, 1985. But it will be convenient to direct the  implemen-\ntation with effect from September 1, 1985.725B-G; 726A-B]\n717\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 12311 of 1985.
\n(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\nGobind Mukhoty and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Petitioners.
\n    M.S. Gujral, Madhu Sudan Rao, I.S. Goel, C.V. Subba Rao,
\nand Ms. Kitty Kumarmanglam for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    THAKKAR,  J. The alleged violation of “Equal work  equal
\npay” doctrine is the principal grievance of the petitioners.
\n    The petitioners 102(1) in number holding the degrees  of
\nB.A., B.Ed. and M.A., B.Ed. were appointed as Supervisors by
\na competent selection committee constituted by the Education
\nDepartment  of\tHaryana from time to time since\t October  2,
\n1978.\n<\/p>\n
    They have instituted the present petition under Art.  32
\nof the Constitution of India seeking appropriate reliefs  in
\nthe context of two grievances, one that the petitioners\t are
\ngiven a deliberate break of one day after the lapse of every
\nsix  months and have thus been treated as temporary  Govern-
\nment  servants notwithstanding the fact that they have\tbeen
\ncontinuously working eversince the dates of their respective
\nappointment  subject  to the aforesaid break of one  day  at
\nintervals of six months instead of absorbing them as regular
\nemployees  in regular pay scales. And secondly,\t though\t the
\npetitioners  performed\ttheir duties as Supervisors  in\t the
\nEducation  Department and do the same work as is being\tdone
\nby their counterparts, respondents 2 to 6 who are  discharg-
\ning  similar duties as Supervisors in the Education  Depart-
\nment  who are absorbed as regular government  servants\tthey
\nare  paid less. The relief claimed by the petitioners is  in
\nthe following terms:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (1) To declare by appropriate writ that the
\n\t      petitioners  continue to be in the service  of
\n\t      the  respondents from the date of\t appointment
\n\t      irrespective of their being a deliberate break
\n\t      in  service  after  every six  months  by\t the
\n\t      respondents in violation of Articles 14 and 16
\n\t      of the Constitution of India;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.  Originally  there  were  91\tpetitioners.
\n\t      Subsequently  11\tmore were added as  per\t the
\n\t      order of the Court dated September 18, 1986 in
\n\t      Civil  Misc. Petition Nos. 23014 and 25722  of
\n\t      1986.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      718<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t (2)  To  declare  by  appropriate  writ  or
\n\t      direction that the petitioners are in continu-
\n\t      ous  service  since their respective  date  of
\n\t      appointments  since the National Adult  Educa-
\n\t      tion  Programme  was  introduced\tand  further
\n\t      issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to\t the
\n\t      respondent  that the petitioners are  entitled
\n\t      to the benefit of notification dated 15-9-1982
\n\t      issued  by  respondent State  of\tHaryana\t and
\n\t      accordingly the petitioners be put on  similar
\n\t      pay  scales and service conditions as that  of
\n\t      Masters  (B.  A.,\t B. Ed. ) in  the  State  of
\n\t      Haryana, and,
\n\t      (3) To issue a writ in the nature of  mandamus
\n\t      or any appropriate writ, order or direction to
\n\t      the  respondent nos. 2 and 4 to put the  peti-
\n\t      tioners on regular pay scales along with other
\n\t      consequential benefits of a permanent employee
\n\t      from the date of initial appointment.
\n    Before dealing with the grievances made by the petition-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ers,  it would be appropriate to portray the  factual  back-
\nground.\t The  Education Department of State of\tHaryana\t has
\nconstituted  an\t Adult Education Scheme\t under\tthe  overall
\ncontrol\t of Joint Director, Adult and  non-formal  Education
\nDepartment,  respondent no. 3 herein in the context  of\t the
\nNational Adult Education Scheme sponsored by the  Government
\nof  India  the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi  in\t1978
\n(October  2,  1978). The aim of adult education\t under\tthis
\nscheme is to provide functional literacy to the\t illiterates
\nin  the age group of 15–35. The State Government  has\talso
\nframed another Scheme for the non-formal education under the
\noverall control of the same official. The objective of\tthis
\nscheme\tis to impart learning by special contact courses  to
\nthe  students  in the age group of 6–15, who  are  dropouts
\nfrom schools. The petitioners are appointed as\tSupervisors.
\nThere are hundreds of such Adult Education Centres and\tNon-
\nformal\tEducation Centres. One supervisor is provided for  a
\ngroup  of  30 centres. Thus each of the\t petitioners  is  in
\ncharge\tof 30 centres under one scheme or the other.  He  is
\npaid  remuneration at the rate of Rs.500 p.m. as fixed\tsal-
\nary. Each one of them was, prior to March, 1984 also paid  a
\nsum  of Rs.60 as fixed travelling allowance which  allowance
\nhas  been increased to Rs. 150 per month from March 7,\t1984
\nonwards.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Adult\tEducation Centres are run  under  the  Rural
\nFunctional Literacy Programme\/Project (RFLP) of the  Central
\nGovernment.  The  project  is however  administered  by\t the
\nrespondent, the State of Haryana. According to the  respond-
\nent  the expenditure in respect of remuneration\t payable  to
\nthe petitioners under RFLP is
\n719<\/span>
\nborne by the Central Government. With regard to the  centres
\nfunctioning\tunder\t the\tState\t Adult\t   Education
\nProgramme\/Project (SAEP) to those of the petitioners who are
\nemployed under the Scheme are paid remuneration on the\tsame
\npattern by the State Government as and by way of honorarium.
\n    The\t functions and duties discharged by the\t petitioners
\nin  their capacity as Supervisors under the Adult  Education
\nScheme as per the communication dated April 8, 1985  (Annex-
\nure  R-2)  addressed  by respondent no. 3  to  the  District
\nOfficers and Project Officers, are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  supervisors of the adult  education\t has
\n\t      been given the status equivalent to masters of
\n\t      formal  schools and their functions  are\talso
\n\t      like  the\t Block\tEducation  Officers  of\t the
\n\t      formal  schools.\tThus the  functions  of\t the
\n\t      supervisors  working  under  Adult   Education
\n\t      Scheme are inspection and to impart knowledge.
\n\t      The  general  duties of the  supervisors\twill
\n\t      be:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      to make educational survey of his own  village
\n\t      and nearby villages under the Rural Functional
\n\t      Literacy\tProgramme for starting adult  educa-
\n\t      tion  and\t non-formal  education\tcentres,  to
\n\t      locate and recommend for appointment  suitable
\n\t      instructors for these centres from these\tvery
\n\t      villages, to give active co-operation in their
\n\t      training,\t to give guidance in  their  reading
\n\t      and writing material, to give proper direction
\n\t      to  instructors  in  his\tcluster\t the  latest
\n\t      techniques  of adult education, to give  guid-
\n\t      ance  continuously  in  latest  technique\t  of
\n\t      teaching\tmethods, inspection of\tcentres\t and
\n\t      making arrangements for their reading, writing
\n\t      material,\t to  give  model  lessons,  to\thold
\n\t      discussions  in  the Mohallas\/ houses  of\t the
\n\t      community cultivating friendship and  personal
\n\t      relationship   with  the\t community,   create
\n\t      awareness and awakening in them in the  matter
\n\t      of literacy, functionality and awareness.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t controversy  as  to whether  the  Supervisors\twere
\nfull-time  Supervisors\tlike Respondents 2 to 6\t or  whether
\nthey were part-time Supervisors as has been contended by the
\nState  of  Haryana in its affidavit in reply has to  be\t re-
\nsolved in favour of the petitioners inasmuch as the documen-
\ntary  evidence placed on record establishes that  the  peti-
\ntioners\t were full-time (and not part-time) Supervisors.  At
\nAn-\n<\/p>\n
720<\/span><\/p>\n
nexure\t‘C’ has been produced a document  entitled  ‘Revised
\nfinancial  pattern of the Project with 100 Educational\tcen-
\ntres   …….\t “. The cadre of Supervisors  has  been\t de-
\nscribed as full-time cadre in this document, as evidenced by
\nthe following extract:–\n<\/p>\n
“C. Supervision\n<\/p>\n
       (a) Full time Supervisors-one supervisor for a  clus-
\nter of 30 centres (3 supervisors for 100 centres each in the
\nrank  of  Assistant  Inspector of Schools  with\t an  average
\nsalary of Rs. 500 per month)
\n\t\t\t\t\t       Rs.18,000.00\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) TA cost on supervision (Rs. 150
\n  per month per supervisor)
\n\t\t\t\t\t       Rs. 5,400.00
\n\t\t\t\t       Total   Rs.23,400.00″\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t       (Emphasis     added).\n<\/p>\n
What is more, the matter has been placed beyond the pale  of
\ncontroversy by a Circular issued by the State Government  to
\nall Adult Education Officers as per Annexure ‘D’ dated April
\n9, 1985. The relevant extract from the Circular deserves  to
\nbe quoted:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1. Headquarter of the supervisor:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (a)\tThe headquarter of  each  supervisor
\n\t      shall  be\t established in the  middle  of\t the
\n\t      village.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (b)\tEach supervisor will be\t present  at
\n\t      his  Headquarter on a fix day once in  a\tweek
\n\t      between 9.30 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. The information
\n\t      of  the fix day will be given to all  the\t in-
\n\t      structors and adult education officers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (c)\tThe monthly tour programme  of\teach
\n\t      Supervisor  will\tbe  got\t sanctioned  by\t the
\n\t      Assistant Project Education Officers and\tmade
\n\t      his  tour\t according to this plan\t as  far  as
\n\t      possible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (d) The Supervisor will stay whole day in
\n\t      the  village and will inspect informal  educa-
\n\t      tion  centres in the day and  adult  education
\n\t      centre in the night.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)  He  will call the  meeting  of  respected
\n\t      persons of the
\n\t      721<\/span>
\n\t      village  on  the date of meeting\tand  discuss
\n\t      about the progress of the centre. This meeting
\n\t      can be called before or after the time of\t the
\n\t      centre.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (f)\t If any supervisor leaves the  head-
\n\t      quarter without permission or does not perform
\n\t      his  duties properly the necessary action\t may
\n\t      be taken against him.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It\tis therefore futile to contend that the\t petitioners
\nin  their  capacity  as Supervisors were  required  only  to
\nperform\t part-time work. As per clause (d) of the  aforesaid
\nextract, the supervisors were required to stay for the whole
\nday  in the village and were required to visit the  Informal
\nEducation  Centre  and\tthe Adult Education  Centre  in\t the
\nnight.\tThey were also required to go on tour and to  remain
\nat  the headquarter once a week from 9.30 A.M. to 4.00\tP.M.
\nThe conclusion is therefore inevitable that the\t petitioners
\nwere  not part-time functionaries but were whole-time  func-
\ntionaries.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t matter may now be examined in this background.\t The
\nrespondent-State  has resisted the claim of  the  petitioner
\nfor  granting  them pay in accordance  with  the  pay-scales
\napplicable to Respondents 2 to 6, who are Supervisors in the
\nregular cadre discharging similar functions, on four grounds
\nviz:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     (i) that the petitioners are not  full-
\n\t      time employees;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (ii)  the  mode of\trecruitment  of\t the
\n\t      petitioners  is  different from  the  mode  of
\n\t      recruitment of respondents 2 to 6.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (iii)  the nature of the functions\tdis-
\n\t      charged by the petitioners are not similar  to
\n\t      the  functions discharged by respondents 2  to
\n\t      6; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (iv) appointments are made on six-month-
\n\t      ly  basis\t and  there is a  break\t in  service
\n\t      having  regard to the fact that the posts\t are
\n\t      sanctioned  on year to year basis in  view  of
\n\t      the temporary nature of the Scheme.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    With regard to the first ground for not granting  salary
\non  the same basis as of respondents 2 to 6, viz. that\tthey
\nare  part-time\temployees  whereas respondents 2  to  6\t are
\nfull-time  employees, having examined the aforesaid  records
\nplaced before the Court, we are of the opinion that there is
\nno substance in this contention.\n<\/p>\n
722<\/span><\/p>\n
    With regard to the next contention viz. that the mode of
\nrecruitment of the petitioners is different from the mode of
\nrecruitment  of\t respondents  2 to 6, we are  afraid  it  is
\naltogether without substance. The contention has been raised
\nin the following terms (paragraph 4(d) of the  Counter-affi-
\ndavit  dated  6-1-1986 filed on behalf of Respondents  1  to\n<\/p>\n
13):–\n<\/p>\n
\t      It is absolutely incorrect that the  Petition-
\n\t      ers  are\tsimilarly placed  as  the  employees
\n\t      under the Social Education Scheme, as alleged.
\n\t      The  latter are whole-time employees  selected
\n\t      by  the subordinate services  Selection  Board
\n\t      after  competing with candidates from any\t pan
\n\t      of  the country. In the case  of\tPetitioners,
\n\t      normally\tthe selection at best is limited  to
\n\t      the  candidates  from  the Cluster  of  a\t few
\n\t      villages\tonly.  The contention  made  by\t the
\n\t      Petitioners has no justifiable basis.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   (Emphasis
\n\t      added).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We need not enter into the merits of the respective modes of
\nselection.  Assuming that the selection of  the\t petitioners
\nhas  been limited to the cluster of a few villages,  whereas
\nRespondents  2\tto 6 were selected by another  mode  wherein
\nthey had faced competition from candidates from all over the
\ncountry., we need not examine the merits of these modes\t for
\nthe very good reason that once the nature and functions\t and
\nthe  work are not shown to be dissimilar the fact  that\t the
\nrecruitment was made in one way or the other would hardly be
\nrelevant  from\tthe point of view of “Equal  pay  for  equal
\nwork”  doctrine.  It was open to the State to  resort  to  a
\nselection  process  whereat  candidates from  all  over\t the
\ncountry\t might have competed if they so desired. If  however
\nthey deliberately chose to limit the selection of the candi-
\ndates  from a cluster of a few villages it will not  absolve
\nthe State from treating such candidates in a  discriminatory
\nmanner\tto the disadvantage of the selectees once  they\t are
\nappointed,  provided  the  work done by\t the  candidates  so
\nselected  is  similar in nature. It was\t perhaps  considered
\nadvantageous  to make recruitment from the cluster of a\t few
\nvillages  for  the purposes of the  Adult  Education  Scheme
\nbecause the Supervisors appointed from that area would\tknow
\nthe  people of that area more intimately and would be  in  a
\nbetter\tposition to persuade them to take advantage  of\t the
\nAdult  Education  Scheme in order to make it a\tsuccess.  So
\nalso it was perhaps considered desirable to make recourse to
\nthis  mode of recruitment of candidates\t because  candidates
\nfrom  other parts of the country would have found it  incon-
\nvenient\t and  onerous to seek employment in  such  a  Scheme
\nwhere they would have to
\n723<\/span>
\nwork  amongst  total  strangers and it would  have  made  it
\ndifficult for them to discharge their functions of  persuad-
\ning the villagers to avail of the Adult Education Scheme  on
\naccount\t of  that factor. So also they might not  have\tbeen
\ntempted to compete for these posts in view of the fact\tthat
\nthe  Scheme itself was for an uncertain duration  and  could
\nhave  been discontinued at any time. Be that as it  may,  so
\nlong  as the petitioners are doing work which is similar  to
\nthe  work  performed by respondents 2 to 6  from  the  stand
\npoint of ‘Equal work for equal pay’ doctrine, the  petition-
\ners cannot be discriminated against in regard to pay scales.
\nWhether\t equal work is put in by a candidate, selected by  a
\nprocess\t whereat  candidates from all parts of\tthe  country
\ncould have competed or whether they are selected by a  proc-
\ness  where candidates from only a cluster of a few  villages
\ncould have competed is altogether irrelevant and immaterial,
\nfor  the  purposes of the applicability of ‘Equal  work\t for
\nequal pay’ doctrine.. A typist doing similar work as another
\ntypist\tcannot\tbe denied equal pay on the ground  that\t the
\nprocess\t of selection was different in asmuch as  ultimately
\nthe work done is similar and there is no rational ground  to
\nrefuse\tequal pay for equal work. It is quite possible\tthat
\nif  he\thad  to compete with candidates from  all  over\t the
\ncountry, he might or might not have been selected. It  would
\nbe  easier  for\t him to be selected when  the  selection  is
\nlimited\t to  a cluster of a few villages.  That\t however  is
\naltogether a different matter. It is possible that he  might
\nnot  have been selected at all if he had to compete  against
\ncandidates from all over the country. But once he is select-
\ned,  whether he is selected by one process or the other,  he
\ncannot be denied equal pay for equal work without  violating
\nthe said doctrine. This plea raised by the  Respondent-State
\nmust also fail.\n<\/p>\n
    Turning  now  to the contention that the nature  of\t the
\nduties\tare different,, the Respondent-State has  failed  to
\nestablish  its\tplea. In the regular  cadre,  the  essential
\nqualification  for  appointment is B.A.,  B.Ed.\t Petitioners
\nalso  possess  the same qualifications viz. B.A.,  B.Ed.  In
\nfact  many  of\tthem even possess  higher  degrees  such  as
\nM.A.M.Ed. In what manner and in what respect are the  duties
\nand  functions\tdischarged by those who are in\tthe  regular
\ncadre  different?  The\tpetitioners  having  discharged\t the
\ninitial burden showing similarity in this regard, the burden
\nis  shifted on the Respondent-State to establish that  these
\nare dissimilar in essence and in substance. We are unable to
\nuphold\tthe bare assertion made in this behalf by the  State
\nof  Haryana (in paragraph 21 of the Counter-affidavit  dated
\nNovember 23, 1985). In fact the communication dated April 8,
\n1985  (Annexure\t R-2) addressed by the respondent  State  of
\nHaryana to the District Officers which
\n724<\/span>
\nhas been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment supports
\nthe  contentions  of  the petitioners and  belies  the\tplea
\nraised by the Respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
    Lastly  we\thave to deal with the  contention  that\t the
\nScheme is a temporary Scheme and the posts are sanctioned on
\nan year to year basis having regard to the temporary  nature
\nof  the Scheme. We are unable to comprehend how this  factor
\ncan  be\t invoked for violating. ‘Equal pay for\tequal  work’
\ndoctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and
\nthe Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is
\nshown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged
\nand the work done is similar and the doctrine of ‘Equal\t pay
\nfor  equal work’ is attracted. As regards the effect of\t the
\nbreaks\tgiven at the end of every six months, we  will\tdeal
\nwith  this  aspect  shortly hereafter. That  however  is  no
\nground\tfor refusing aspect the ‘Equal pay for\tequal  work’
\ndoctrine.  Be  it realized that we are\tconcerned  with\t the
\n‘Equal\twork Equal pay’ doctrine only within the  parameters
\nof the four grounds and the fact situation discussed  herei-
\nnabove.\t We  are  not called upon, and we have\tno  need  or
\noccasion  to consider the applicability or otherwise of\t the
\nsaid doctrine outside these parameters. For instance we\t are
\nnot  required to express any opinion in the context  of\t em-
\nployment of similar nature under different employers, or  in
\ndifferent  cadres  under the same  or  different  employers.
\nNor-are\t we  concerned with questions required to  be  dealt
\nwith  by authorities like the Pay Commissions such as  equa-
\ntion  of  cadres  or  determination  of\t parity-differential
\nbetween different cadres or making assessment of work  loads
\nor qualitative differential based on relevant considerations
\nand  such  other matters. We are concerned  in\tthe  present
\nmatter\twith employees of the same employer doing same\twork
\nof  same  nature discharged in the same department  but\t ap-
\npointed\t on a temporary basis instead of in a regular  cadre
\non a regular basis. We have therefore decided the  questions
\nraised\tbefore\tus in the backdrop of facts of\tthe  present
\ncase.  On  the other dimensions of the\tdoctrine  we  remain
\nsilent as there is no need or occasion to speak.
\n    In the result we are of the opinion that the petitioners
\nare entitled to be paid on the same basis of same pay  scale
\nas per which respondents 2 to 6 who are discharging  similar
\nduties\tas Supervisors just like the petitioners, are  being
\npaid.\n<\/p>\n
    We are now faced with the problem arising in the context
\nof  the fact that appointments of the petitioners were\tini-
\ntially made for six months and after giving a break of a day
\nor two they were reappointed
\n725<\/span>
\nto  the\t same posts by fresh  order.  The  counter-affidavit
\nfiled on 23rd November, 1985 by the State of Haryana and the
\ndocuments placed on record go to show that the\tpetitioners’
\ncontention  that  this is done deliberately with a  view  to
\ndeny to them the benefits enjoyed by the employees similarly
\nsituated  and  discharging similar duties and  functions  as
\nSupervisors  in the regular cadres.We find it  difficult  to
\naccept the contention of the petitioners that this is  being
\ndone  deliberately  and with mala fides\t attributed  to\t the
\nRespondent-State. The petitioners have been appointed in the
\ncontext\t of a Scheme which is by the very nature  of  things
\ntransient  and\ttemporary.  Annexure R-1  to  the  aforesaid
\ncounter-affidavit  shows  that the Scheme  was\texpected  to
\nfunction for ten months. No doubt it has been extended\tfrom
\nyear  to  year.\t But by the very nature\t and  scope  of\t the
\nScheme,\t once  the objective of Adult  Education  is  accom-
\nplished\t in  the  sense that the illiterate  adults  of\t the
\ncluster\t of villages become literate pursuant to the  educa-
\ntion  imparted at the centres, the need for adult  education
\nwould  diminish progressively and ultimately cease. As\tdis-
\nclosed\tin  paragraphs 16 and 17 of the\t aforesaid  counter-
\naffidavit the targets were expected to be achieved latest by
\n1990.  It was in this background that the posts\t were  sanc-
\ntioned\ton year to year basis (paragraph 11 of\tthe  counter
\naffidavit).  Having regard to these facts and  circumstances
\nwe do not think that the Respondent-State can be accused  of
\nmaking appointments on a temporary six months basis with any
\nulterior  or oblique motive. In our opinion, therefore,\t the
\nprayer of the petitioners to absorb them as regular  employ-
\nees  on\t a permanent basis from the date  of  theft  initial
\nappointment has no justification. That however does not mean
\nthat  the petitioners should be deprived of  the  legitimate
\nbenefits of being fixed in a pay-scale corresponding to\t the
\none  applicable\t to respondents 2 to 6 by treating  them  as
\nemployees  who have continued from the date of\tinitial\t ap-
\npointment  by disregarding the breaks which have been  given
\non  account  of the peculiar nature of\tthe  Scheme.  While,
\ntherefore, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right
\nto  be absorbed as permanent and regular employees from\t the
\ninception,  they would be justified in claiming pay  on\t the
\nbasis  of  the length of service computed from the  date  of
\ntheir  appointment  depending on the length  of\t service  by
\ndisregarding the breaks which have been given for a  limited
\npurpose.  If  this is not done the anomaly such as  the\t one
\nhighlighted by the petitioners in their rejoinder  affidavit
\ndated  December 13, 1985 will arise. As stated by the  peti-
\ntioners in paragraph 4(c) of the aforesaid rejoinder affida-
\nvit,  while a Peon in the regular service would\t be  drawing
\nRs.650 the petitioners would be getting only Rs.500 as fixed
\nsalary\tnotwithstanding\t the nature and\t importance  of\t the
\nfunctions discharged by them and the role played by
\n726<\/span>
\nthem  in the important field of advancement of\tliteracy  in
\nthe  State.  And finally we must deal with the\tquestion  of
\ndate  with effect from which the petitioners should be\tpaid
\nthe  difference in salary. In our opinion having  regard  to
\nthe  facts  and circumstances of the present  case  ends  of
\njustice would be met if the petitioners are paid the differ-
\nence  in salaries with effect from the date of the  institu-
\ntion  of the Writ Petition viz. September 18, 1985.  But  it
\nwill be convenient to direct the implementation with  effect
\nfrom September 1, 1985. We accordingly allow the Writ  Peti-
\ntion partly and direct as under:–\n<\/p>\n
I
\n    The Petitioners shall be fixed in the same pay-scale  as
\nthat of Respondents 2 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
II
\n    The pay of each of the petitioners shall be fixed having
\nregard to the length of service with effect from the date of
\nhis  initial  appointment by ignoring the break\t in  service
\narising in the context of the fact that the initial appoint-
\nment  orders were for 6 months and fresh appointment  orders
\nwere issued after giving a break of a day or two.
\nIII
\n    The fixation shall be made as per the general principles
\nadopted\t whenever  pay revisions are made.  In\tcase  upward
\nrevision has been effected in respect of the ‘supervisors in
\nthe  regular, cadre such revision should be taken  into\t ac-
\ncount in refixing the pay of the petitioners.
\nIV
\n    The\t amount\t representing the difference in pay  of\t the
\npetitioners computed as per the present order shall be\tpaid
\nto  each petitioner preferably latest by Mahatma  Gandhiji’s
\nbirthday  which\t falls\ton 2nd October, 1987  or  latest  by
\nNovember 1, 1987. The petitioners will be entitled to incre-
\nments in the pay-scale in accordance with law  notwithstand-
\ning the break in service that might have been given.
\nV
\n    We\thope  and trust that the State of Haryana  will\t not
\nshow displeasure at the petitioners who have approached this
\nCourt in order to
\n727<\/span>
\nvindicate their right to claim equal pay and that service of
\nno petitioner would be terminated except on reaching the age
\nof  superannuation  or by way  of  appropriate\tdisciplinary
\naction,\t or  on abandonment of the Scheme. For the  sake  of
\nabundent caution we direct accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
VI
\n    Fresh  appointment orders will have to be  issued  reap-
\npointing  the petitioners who have continued in\t service  on
\nthe  expiry  of the six months period from time to  time  in
\norder to give effect to the direction contained in clause  V
\nhereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
VII
\n    In\tcase  the  amounts of difference in  pay  cannot  be
\ncomputed within the time-limit granted by this order, provi-
\nsional\tand  approximate  calculations should  be  made\t and
\npayment\t should be made on such basis subject to  final\t ad-
\njustment within the time granted.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t petitioners  shall  be paid the cost  of  the\tWrit
\nPetition quantified at Rs.5 ,000. Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
H.L.C.\t\t\t\t\t\t    Petition\nallowed.\n728<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2049, 1987 SCR (3) 714 Author: M Thakkar Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J) PETITIONER: BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT31\/07\/1987 BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, […]<\/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-218172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987 - 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\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-17T09:38:33+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-17T09:38:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987\"},\"wordCount\":4069,\"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\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987\",\"name\":\"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-17T09:38:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987 - 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\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-17T09:38:33+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987","datePublished":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-17T09:38:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987"},"wordCount":4069,"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\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987","name":"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-17T09:38:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-dass-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhagwan Dass And Others vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 July, 1987"}]},{"@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\/218172","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=218172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}