{"id":219207,"date":"2008-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-02-26T14:07:05","modified_gmt":"2015-02-26T08:37:05","slug":"surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008<\/div>\n
   CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004                            (1)\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                          CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                      CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004\n                                      Date of Decision: 08 -07-2008\n\n\n   Surjit Singh                                  .....Petitioner\n\n                  Versus\n\n   Union of India and others                     .....Respondents\n\n\n   Coram:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA\n                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI\n\n\n   Present:       Shri J.S. Manipur, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n\n                  Ms. Madhu Dayal, DAG, Punjab.\n\n                  Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for Union of India.\n\n\n   1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see\n      the judgment?\n   2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n   3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n\nHEMANT GUPTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order<\/p>\n
dated 19.5.2004 (Annexure P.2) passed by the Central Administrative<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh ( for short `the Tribunal’),<\/p>\n
whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner claiming<\/p>\n
pensionary benefits, after his resignation as clerk from Chandigarh<\/p>\n
Administration, was declined.\n<\/p>\n
              The petitioner joined    Chandigarh Administration as clerk<\/p>\n
with effect from 10.3.1970. He was promoted as Assistant in the year<\/p>\n
1977. He submitted his resignation in October, 1982 and was relieved<\/p>\n
on 2.11.1982. It was on 13.2.2003 i.e. after more than 20 years, the<\/p>\n
petitioner gave a legal notice for grant of pension under the Punjab Civil<\/p>\n
Services Rules. It was contended that since he has rendered more than
\n     CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004                        (2)<\/p>\n
12 years of service, therefore, he is entitled to the pensionary benefits on<\/p>\n
completion of 10 years of service irrespective of the fact whether he<\/p>\n
has resigned from the service. The learned Tribunal relied upon Union<\/p>\n
of India vs. Rakesh Kumar,<\/a> 2001 SCC 1082 and Reserve Bank of<\/p>\n
India vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon,<\/a> 2004(1) SLR 431 (SC), to hold that<\/p>\n
in case of resignation, the employee is not entitled to pensionary<\/p>\n
benefits. It is the said order, which is under challenge in the present<\/p>\n
writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rule<\/p>\n
26 of the Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 stipulates         of<\/p>\n
forfeiture of the past service, whereas while interpreting somewhat<\/p>\n
similar Rules, a Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11126 of 1998<\/p>\n
decided on 3.12.2002 (Mehar Singh v. State of Punjab and others<\/a>) has<\/p>\n
held that an employee, who has put in more than 10 years of service, is<\/p>\n
entitled to pension and other retiral benefits, as premature retirement<\/p>\n
from service and voluntary resignation from service will have the same<\/p>\n
effect. The counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a short order<\/p>\n
passed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 10283<\/p>\n
of 2003 decided on 11.4.2005 (Anant Ram v.              The Punjab State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board, Patiala and others<\/a>) following the earlier judgment in<\/p>\n
Mehar Singh’s case (supra). as well as the order passed by a Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in Om Parkash v. Financial Commissioner and<\/p>\n
Principal Secretary<\/a> to Government of Haryana and another, 2007(2)<\/p>\n
RSJ 785.\n<\/p>\n
            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length,<\/p>\n
but do not find any merit in the present writ petition.     Rule 26 of the<\/p>\n
Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the<\/p>\n
Rules’)    contemplates forfeiture of the      past services in case of<\/p>\n
resignation. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the
\n     CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004                            (3)<\/p>\n
petitioner rely upon Rule 49 of the Rules, which deals with the amount<\/p>\n
of pension, wherein it has been provided that on completion of 10 years<\/p>\n
of qualifying service, the amount of pension is contemplated to be<\/p>\n
proportionate to the amount of pension permissible under Clause (a) of<\/p>\n
Rule 49(2) of the Rules.      The specific question of         admissibility of<\/p>\n
proportionate pension after the resignation, came up for consideration<\/p>\n
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India             and others v.<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar,<\/a> (2001)4 SCC Page 309. In the said case, a member of<\/p>\n
the Border Security Force, governed by the Rules, sought pension after<\/p>\n
submitting resignation after completion of qualifying service of 10 years,<\/p>\n
but before 20 years. While examining Rule 49 of the Rules, the Court<\/p>\n
found that the argument that a member would be entitled to pension<\/p>\n
on the completion of 10 years of qualifying service is without any basis.<\/p>\n
Para No.16 of the judgment deals with the qualifying service as defined<\/p>\n
under Rule 3(q). It was held to the following effect:-<\/p>\n
                   “Further clause (2)(a) of Rule 49 specifically provides
\n                   for grant of pension if a government servant retires
\n                   after completing qualifying service of not less than 33
\n                   years. The amount of pension is to be calculated at
\n                   fifty per cent of     average emoluments         subject to
\n                   maximum provided therein. Clause(2)(b) upon which
\n                   much reliance is placed indicates that in case of a
\n                   government servant retiring in accordance with the
\n                   provisions of the Rules before completing qualifying
\n                   service of 33 years, but after completing qualifying
\n                   service   of   ten   years,    the     pension    shall    be
\n                   proportionate to the amount of pension admissible
\n                   under clause 2(a) and in no case, the amount                of
\n                   pension shall be less than Rs.375 per month.              This
\n                   would only mean that in case where a government
\n                   servant retires on superannuation i.e. the age of
\n                   compulsory retirement as per service conditions or in
\n                   accordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules, after
\n                   completing 10 years      of qualifying service, he would
\n    CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004                         (4)<\/p>\n
                  get pension which is to be calculated and quantified
\n                  as provided under clause (2) of Rule 49. this clause
\n                  would cover cases of retirement under Rules 35 and
\n                  36, that is, voluntary retirement after 20 years        of
\n                  qualifying service, compulsory retirement       after the
\n                  prescribed age and such other cases          as provided
\n                  under the Rules. However, this has nothing to do with
\n                  the quitting of service after tendering resignation. It is
\n                  also to be stated that Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension)
\n                  Rules specifically provides that resignation from a
\n                  service or post entails forfeiture of past service unless
\n                  resignation is submitted to take up, with proper
\n                  permission, another appointment under the Government
\n                  where service qualifies. Hence, on the basis of Rule 49
\n                  a member of BSF who has resigned from his post after
\n                  completing more than 10 years of qualifying service, but
\n                  less than 20 years would not be eligible to get
\n                  pensionary benefits. There is no other provision in the
\n                  CCS (Pension) Rules giving such benefit to such
\n                  government servants. (Emphasis Supplied)”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It may be mentioned here that the judgment in Rakesh<\/p>\n
Kumar’s case (supra), has been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in Raj Kumar and others v. Union of India and another, (2006)1<\/p>\n
Supreme Court Cases 737 in respect of            the members of Border<\/p>\n
Security Force. The aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
were followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Jang Bahadur and<\/p>\n
another v. Union of India and others (CWP No. 10292 of 2007 decided<\/p>\n
on 13.3.2008) and it has been held that the petitioners therein, having<\/p>\n
submitted their resignation after 10 years of service, are not entitled to<\/p>\n
pensionary benefits.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the said judgment, the argument raised by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner is without merit. The judgments<\/p>\n
referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to<\/p>\n
interpretation of Rule 49. Such interpretation is contrary to the Hon’ble
\n    CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004                             (5)<\/p>\n
Supreme Court’s judgment as referred to above.            Therefore, the said<\/p>\n
judgments no longer can be said to be a good law.\n<\/p>\n
            The   judgment     in    Anant       Ram’s     case     (supra)      is<\/p>\n
distinguishable, in as much as, in the said case, the petitioner has put<\/p>\n
in 26 years of qualifying service. The binding principles of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra) were not brought to the<\/p>\n
notice of the Court and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be binding<\/p>\n
on this Court and is per-incuriam.\n<\/p>\n
            A Single Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported as<\/p>\n
Bhim Raj Goyal v. State of Punjab and others, 2005(2) SLR 326, has<\/p>\n
extensively examined the claim of pension on submission of resignation<\/p>\n
and consequent forfeiture of service. In the said judgment, reliance has<\/p>\n
been placed upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in                 Reserve<\/p>\n
Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon,<\/a> 2004(1) SLR 431 (SC) and<\/p>\n
Uco Bank v. Sanwar Mal,<\/a> 2004(3) SLR 629 (SC). The learned Single<\/p>\n
Bench did not find any favour with the arguments                  raised by the<\/p>\n
employees that all categories of employees, whether superannuating,<\/p>\n
resigning, retiring prematurely or compulsorily, are required to be<\/p>\n
treated as one category. It was held by the learned Single Judge, as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “However, in cases where an employee resigns from
\n                  service, he has to forfeit his qualifying service as has
\n                  been provided by Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules in Volume I
\n                  and Rule 3.17-A(1)(v) of the Rules in Volume II.              An
\n                  employee attaining superannuation stands entirely in
\n                  a different class       than an employee who                after
\n                  exercising his own sweet will has preferred to cashier
\n                  his relationship with his employer.          He has left the
\n                  employer    in    the    mid    sea     without     attaining
\n                  superannuation. There may be numerous reasons for
\n                  the employee to tender resignation which may include
\n                  better opportunities in a multi-national company or
\n     CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004                                (6)<\/p>\n
                  entering in his own private business or going abroad
\n                  soon and so forth. The classification between the two
\n                  categories have been founded on intelligible differntia
\n                  which has a rational nexus to the object sought to be
\n                  achieved by permitting superannuated employee in
\n                  that class to earn pension.           Those who          resign by
\n                  exercising their desertion are deprived of pension. The
\n                  basis of the classification is that          there is a class of
\n                  disciplined employees who wishes to serve till the age
\n                  of superannuation and the other class which wishes to
\n                  cashier    its    relationship   with      the   employer       pre-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  maturely         without    waiting        for     the    age     of\n                  superannuation        to   arrive.    In   order    to   maintain\n<\/pre>\n
                  discipline and a bureaucracy committed to the cause
\n                  of translating the hopes of founding father into action,
\n                  a safe    tenure upto the age of superannuation has
\n                  been provided to those who maintain the discipline
\n                  and those who prefer to violate that discipline, cannot
\n                  claim the benefits.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner<\/p>\n
having submitted resignation after completion of 10 years of service, but<\/p>\n
before completion of 20 years, is not entitled to any pension. Hence, the<\/p>\n
present writ petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                             (HEMANT GUPTA)\n                                                 JUDGE\n\n\n\n                                              (AJAY TEWARI)\n                                                  JUDGE\nJuly 08     , 2008\n  ds\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008 CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14059-CAT of 2004 Date of Decision: 08 -07-2008 Surjit Singh …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …..Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE […]<\/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-219207","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008 - 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\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-26T08:37:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-26T08:37:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1571,\"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\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-26T08:37:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008 - 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\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-26T08:37:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-26T08:37:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008"},"wordCount":1571,"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\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008","name":"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-26T08:37:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surjit Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/219207","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=219207"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219207\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219207"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219207"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219207"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}