{"id":221947,"date":"2009-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-16T17:34:22","modified_gmt":"2017-08-16T12:04:22","slug":"state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009<\/div>\n
      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND\n                       HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n                                             Date of decision: 07.01.2009\nL.P.A. No.181 of 2003 in\nC.W.P.No.11126 of 1998\n\n\nState of Punjab and others                                   ....Petitioner(s)\n                                    Versus\nMehar Singh                                                  ...Respondent(s)<\/pre>\n
Present:    Mr. A.S. Grewal, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the respondent.<\/p>\n
\n                               AND\nC.W.P.No.13401 of 2004\nNirmaljit Kaur                                                ....Petitioner(s)\n                                    Versus\nState of Punjab and others                                   ...Respondent(s)\n\nPresent:    Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.\n<\/pre>\n
            Mr. A.S. Grewal, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH\n\nJASWANT SINGH,J\n<\/pre>\n
            This judgment shall dispose of LPA No.181 of 2003 titled State
\nof Punjab and others v. Mehar Singh and CWP No.13401 of<\/a> 2004 titled
\nNirmaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others<\/a> as common questions of facts
\nand law are involved in the same.\n<\/p>\n
L.P.A.No.181 of 2003
\n            In this Letters Patent Appeal, the facts are that respondent
\nMehar Singh was appointed as Science Master in the Education Department
\nwith the State of Punjab on 1.2.1983. After serving in various schools of
\nthe State of Punjab for more than 12 years, he submitted his resignation
\nfrom service. His resignation was not accepted, therefore, he filed a writ
\npetition bearing CWP No.3570 of 1996 praying for acceptance of his
\nresignation and ultimately the same was accepted vide order dated
\n17.6.1996 (Annexure P.1) with effect from 5.9.1995. On his being denied
\ngratuity and other pensionary benefits due to his resignation from service,
\n                    L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                   #2#
\n                   C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\nthe respondent Mehar Singh filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.11126 of
\n1998.    Learned Single Judge by relying upon judgments of this Court
\nreported as 1994 (4) SLR, 59 Ganga Bishan v. State of Haryana, and
\n2002(4) RSJ, 440 State of Punjab v. Gurkeerat Singh,, allowed the writ
\npetition and held that since the petitioner Mehar Singh-respondent herein
\nhad resigned after putting in more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to
\npension and other retiral benefits as premature retirement from service and
\nvoluntary resignation from service will have the same effect i.e one is
\nretiring. Learned Single Judge further directed the appellant-State of Punjab
\nto pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount payable w.e.f 1.8.1998 till
\nits payment and further the payment was to be made within six months from
\nthe receipt of copy of this order. Hence the present appeal has been filed by
\nthe appellant-State of Punjab for setting aside the impugned judgment dated
\n3.12.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\n            Petitioner-Nirmaljit Kaur was born on 20.1.1953 and after
\nacquiring qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education, she was selected
\nand appointed as DPE in the Master cadre with the Punjab Education
\nDepartment and joined her duty on 1.1.1979 in the pay scale of Rs.220-
\n500\/-.   After serving for more than 12 years, the petitioner due to
\nunavoidable family circumstances resigned from service. Her resignation
\nwas accepted with effect from 20.3.1991 by the competent authority vide
\norder dated 5.3.1991 (Annexure P.1) and consequently she was relieved
\nfrom service. It is alleged by the petitioner that under the Punjab Civil
\nServices, she is entitled for pension and other pensionary benefits on
\ncompletion of 10 years of qualifying service. It is further alleged that
\ndespite number of representations, the claim of the petitioner for retiral
\nbenefits was not considered by the respondents and ultimately a registered
\nnotice dated 15.3.2004 was served upon them. Respondents-State of Punjab
\nfiled their reply and denied the claim of the petitioner by raising a
\npreliminary objection on the ground that she had resigned from service and
\nher resignation was accepted and as per sub Rule (1) of Rule 7.5 of the
\nPunjab Civil Services (As applicable to Punjab), Volume I, Part I (For
\n                     L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                      #3#
\n                    C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\nshort “PCS Rules”), resignation from service for a post entails forfeiture of
\npast service, therefore, she is not entitled for any pensionary benefits and
\nthe writ petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             Thus in both the abovesaid cases, the question to be determined
\nis as to whether a government employee, who has resigned from service, is
\nentitled to grant of pension and other retiral benefits.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has argued that the
\ngovernment employee, who resigns from service, is not entitled to grant of
\npension and other retiral benefits in view of a specific Rule 7.5 (1) of the
\nPCS Rules entailing forfeiture of past service. It has been further argued
\nthat in the judgments cited and relied upon by learned counsel on behalf of
\nthe government employees, who had resigned from service and were held
\nentitled to grant of pension, the effect of Rule 7.5 (1) of the PCS Rules was
\nnot considered. Learned counsel further relied on judgment of Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court reported as 2004(9) SCC 461 Reserve Bank of India and
\nanother v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Another, 2001(4) SCC 309, Union
\nof India and others v. Rakesh Kumar and<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC, Union of India
\nand others v. Braj Nandan Singh,<\/a> 325.\n<\/p>\n
             On the other hand, counsel for the government employee has
\nargued that the Government employees, on completion of 10 years of
\nqualifying service, are entitled to the grant of pension and other retiral
\nbenefits in view of Rule 6.16 (2) of PCS Rules and the law laid down by
\nlearned Single Benches of this Court in judgments reported as 1994 (4)
\nSLR Ganga Bishan v. State of Haryana 59, 2002(4) RSJ State of Punjab
\nv. Gurkeerat Singh 440, 1998(4) SCT Jagdish Mitter v. State of Punjab
\n157, 2002(4) SCT State of Haryana and another v. Madan Pal Ahlawat
\nand a Division Bench Judgment reported as 1997(4) SCT Shagara
\nSingh v. State of Punjab 532.\n<\/p>\n
             We have heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
             Before we proceed any further, it is necessary to reproduce Sub
\nRules (1) & (2) of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules relating to forfeiture of service
\non resignation. Relevant extracted Rules are reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
                7.5(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed
\n                to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority,
\n                entails forfeiture of past service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                      #4#\n                     C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004\n               (2)     A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if\n<\/pre>\n
               it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission,
\n               another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under
\n               the Government where service qualifies for pension.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (3)     xx                   xx            xx\n               (4)     xx                   xx            xx\n               (5)     xx                   xx            xx\n               (6)     xx                   xx            xx\n<\/pre>\n
            A bare reading of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules
\nreveals that a resignation from service for a post once accepted entails
\nforfeiture of past service. A reading of Sub Rule (2), which is in the nature
\nof an exception, reveals that the resignation shall not entail forfeiture of
\npast service, if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission,
\nanother appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the
\nGovernment where service qualifies for pension.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It is also pertinent to mention here that the grant of pension is
\nregulated by the Rules contained in Part I of Volume-II of the Punjab Civil
\nServices Rules (As applicable to Punjab). Chapter II to Chapter VI of the
\nsame relates to grant of ordinary pensions, which are relevant for the
\ndiscussion herein. Chapter II provides for general provisions relating to
\ngrant of pension. Chapter III provides for conditions of qualifying service
\nfor pension namely the service must be under the Government and on
\nsubstantive and permanent basis and it must be paid by the Government.
\nChapter IV provides for period of reckoning of service of pension and
\nChapter V lays down the different kinds of pension namely compensation
\npension, invalid pension, superannuation pension and retiring pension and
\nthe conditions of their grant. Chapter VI provides for determination of the
\namount of pension
\n            Now, so far as the cases cited and relied upon on behalf of the
\nemployees are concerned, these are as under:\n<\/p>\n
            In Ganga Bishan’s case (supra), the petitioner was permitted
\nto retire as Sweeper from the Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Haryana
\nw.e.f May 31, 1990 after rendering 18 years, 5 months and 15 days of
\nservice and the question framed in that case was, whether the petitioner was
\n                     L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                 #5#
\n                    C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\nentitled to pension and gratuity etc for the period for which he had already
\nserved the Department. This was answered by the learned Single Judge in
\nthe affirmative and he was held entitled to the grant of pension in view of
\nthe provisions of Rule 6.16 (2) as contained in Chapter VI of the Punjab
\nCivil Services Rules (As applicable to Haryana), Volume II, Part I and he
\nwas held entitled to the grant of gratuity etc in accordance with the Rules
\nand the objection of the respondents that he was not entitled to pension and
\ngratuity as he had not completed 12 years of qualifying service, was not
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
              In Gurkeerat Singh’s case(supra), a government employee
\nsubmitted his resignation on 18.2.1975 after putting in 19 years and 04
\nmonths of service as Constable and after relying on Ganga Bishan’s case
\n(supra), it was held by the learned Single Judge in the Regular Second
\nAppeal that a person becomes entitled to the grant of pension on completion
\nof 10 years of qualifying service and the RSA of the State of Punjab was
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
              In Jagdish Mitter’s case (supra), the petitioner was appointed
\nas Patwari in February 1944 and after partition of the country in 1947, he
\nwas promoted as Clerk. After putting in service almost 22 years, he took
\nvoluntary retirement in 1966 while working in the office of D.C, Gurdaspur.
\nLearned Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to pension on
\naccount of his having completed 22 years of service and the respondent-
\nGovernment of Punjab having accepted his request for voluntary retirement.
\nIt is, thus, clear that Jagdish Mitter’s case (supra) is a case of voluntary
\nretirement.\n<\/p>\n
              In Madan Pal Ahlawat’s case (supra), an employee filed a
\nsuit for seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to retirement
\npension and gratuity on the basis of 11 years, 5 months and 15 days of
\nservice rendered by him. After relying upon Ganga Bishan’s case (supra),
\nand another Single Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Haryana State
\nv. Ex-Constable Jai Singh<\/a> vide RSA No.2682 of 2001, decided on
\n26.9.2001, learned Single Judge held that the government employee, who
\nhad resigned after completion of more than 10 years of service was entitled
\n                    L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                     #6#
\n                   C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\nto proportionate pension as provided under Rule 6.16 Sub Rule (2) of the
\nPunjab Civil Services.\n<\/p>\n
             In Shagara Singh’s case (supra), petitioner Shagara Singh
\nwas working in a government aided school. His conditions of service were
\ngoverned by the provisions of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized
\nSchools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the Punjab
\nPrivately Managed Recognized schools Employees (Security of Service )
\nRules, 1981. He sought voluntary retirement after rendering more than 23
\nyears of service. His claim for pension and other benefits was denied on the
\nground that he had resigned and had not retired from service on account of
\nhis failing eye sight and in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act and
\nthe Rules, the Government of Punjab had promulgated a Retiral Benefits
\nScheme and the petitioner had exercised his option for pension under the
\nframed scheme. In that case, respondents had invoked the provisions of
\nRule 7.5 (1) of the PCS Rules to deny the grant of pension and other retiral
\nbenefits on the ground that the petitioner had resigned from service. A
\nDivision Bench of this Court found that the petitioner had rendered more
\nthan 23 years of service and treated him as having actually resigned as was
\nclear from the entries in his service book. The Court further held that there
\nis no rule for reading aforesaid Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules into the Retiral
\nPension Scheme meant for the employees of the aided schools and in these
\nfacts and circumstances, the writ petition was allowed holding that the
\npetitioner, on account of his more than 23 years of service, was held entitled
\nto grant of pension and gratuity etc.
\n             From the above discussion, it can be seen that in the judgments
\nof the learned Single Judges in Ganga Bishan’s case (supra), Gurkeerat
\nSingh’s cae (supra) and Madan Pal Ahlawat’s case (supra), the effect of
\nSub Rule (1) of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules was not considered at all and
\ntherefore, the said judgment cannot be of any assistance to the case of
\nrespondent Mehar Singh in the letters patent appeal and the petitioner-
\nNirmaljit Kaur in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
             In Jagdish Mitter’s case(supra), the facts are distinguishable
\nas it was a case of voluntary retirement besides the fact that effect of Rule
\n                     L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                  #7#
\n                    C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\n7.5 of the PCS Rules was not considered in that case, therefore, this
\njudgment is also not of much assistance to the cause of the government
\nemployees.    In Shagara Singh’s case (supra), the facts are clearly
\ndistinguishable from the present two cases and therefore, the said judgment
\ncannot be relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
             In Reserve Bank of India’s case(supra) relied upon by the
\nState of Punjab, respondents were employees of the Reserve Bank of India
\nand were working in various capacities. They rendered their resignation in
\n1988. Subsequent to their resignation, Pension Regulations came to be
\noperative in the year 1990. By the said Pension Regulations, prescriptions
\nwere made for granting pension to certain categories of employees.
\nRegulation 2(12) provided that retirement means retirement in terms of the
\nRegulation 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff Regulation), 1948 and
\nRegulation 18 thereof provided forfeiture of service on resignation or
\ndismissal or termination. Regulation 26 of the Staff Regulation, 1948 was
\namended w.e.f 7.2.1992 and (3-A) and (3-B) were added, which provided
\nthat an employee, on completion of 20 years of service, could seek
\nvoluntary retirement and the same to be valid was required to be accepted
\nby the competent authority.     The employees, who had since rendered
\nresignation on completion of 20 years of service, though not completed 50
\nyears of age and were ineligible in view of Regulation 18 of the Pension
\nRegulations, which entailed forfeiture of resignation, filed writ petitions
\nbefore the High Court questioning the legality of Regulation 18 of the
\nPension Regulations for grant of pension and claiming benefit under the
\namended Regulations (3-A) of the Regulation 26 of the Staff Regulation,
\n1948. Writ petitions were allowed by the High Court and the appeals filed
\nby the Reserve Bank were allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court thereby
\ndismissing writ petitions filed by the employees. It was held by the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court in paras 9 and 10 that under Regulation 26 of the Staff
\nRegulation, four types of retirements were contemplated i.e (a) retirement
\non superannuation (b) compulsory retirement on invalidation \u00a9 compulsory
\nretirement and (d) voluntary retirement. Resignation did not fit into any of
\nthese categories.    It was further held that voluntary retirement and
\nresignation involve voluntary acts on the part of employee to leave service
\n                    L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                    #8#
\n                   C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\nbut they operate differently as resignation can be tendered at any time but in
\nthe case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought after rendering
\nprescribed period of qualifying service. It was further laid down that in the
\ncase of resignation, normally retiral benefits are being denied but in the case
\nof voluntary retirement, the same are admissible.\n<\/p>\n
            In Rakesh Kumar’s case (supra), respondent Rakesh Kumar
\nwas a member of the Border Security Force and he resigned from service
\nunder Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969 after serving for more than 10 years
\nbut less than 20 years. For grant of pension, members of BSF are governed
\nby CCS (Pension) Rules. Contention was raised on behalf of the employees
\nthat they were entitled to grant of pension in view of Rule 49 (2)(b) of
\n(Pension) Rules, which provided that qualifying service for getting pension
\nwas 10 years; and further in view of the GOI and MHA General order dated
\n27.12.1995 intrepretting Rule 19 of the BSF Rules 1969 to imply that in
\ncase of acceptance of any resignation of an employee after a lapse of 10
\nyears of service, he is entitled to get pension. Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nrejected the case of the employees and held in paras 16 and 20 of the
\njudgment that members of BSF, who had resigned from service, were not
\nentitled to any pension if they were not otherwise entitled to get pension
\nunder CCS (Pension) Rules. It was held that Rule 49 (2)(b) only covered
\ncases of Government Servants, who retire on superannuation after the
\nprescribed age, voluntary retirement after 20 years of qualifying service and
\nsuch other cases as provided under the Rules. It was further held that the
\ncircular dated 27.12.1995 was only applicable to members of BSF, who
\nwere otherwise entitled to get pensionary benefits under the CCS Rules.
\nThe Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that the respondents, who
\nhad resigned from service, were not entitled to grant of any pension in view
\nof Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules specifically providing forfeiture of past
\nservice upon resignation.\n<\/p>\n
            In Braj Nandan’s case (supra), respondent Braj Nandan Singh
\nwas serving as temporary Sorter in the Railway Mail Service, ‘U’ Division,
\nMuzaffarpur with effect from 14.10.1959 and he tendered his resignation on
\n16.5.1977 to contest the election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly and his
\nresignation was accepted vide letter dated 17.5.1977 and in that case Sub
\n                     L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                         #9#
\n                    C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\nRules (1) & (2) of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
\n1972 (For short “Central Civil Services”) were under consideration, which
\nprovided forfeiture of past service on resignation. The language of Sub
\nRules (1) and (2) of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services as para materia to
\nSub Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules and after examining the
\nprovisions of Rules (1) and (2) of Regulation 26, it was held by the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court in paras 5 & 6 of the judgment that after acceptance of the
\nresignation, the past service stands forfeited. Consequently, the appeal filed
\nby the Union of India was accepted and the judgment of the High Court
\naffirming the order of Tribunal was set aside. Relevant paras 5 & 6 are
\nreproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
              “5. In order to appreciate rival submissions Rule 26 which is the
\n              pivotal provision needs to be quoted. The same reads as under:
\n              “26. Forfeiture of service on resignation -(1) Resignation from a
\n              service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the
\n              public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of
\n              past service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (2)    A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it
\n              has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another
\n              appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the
\n              Government where service qualifies.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Rule 26 as the heading itself shows relates to forfeiture of service
\n              on resignation. In clear terms it provides that resignation from a
\n              service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the
\n              public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of
\n              past service.   The language is couched in mandatory terms.
\n              However, sub-rule (2) is in the nature of an exception.             It
\n              provides that resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service
\n              if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission,
\n              another appointment, whether temporary ot permanent, under the
\n              Government where service qualifies. Admittedly this is not the
\n              case in the present appeal. Rule 5 on which great emphasis was
\n              laid down by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with
\n              regulation of claims to pension or family pension. Qualifying
\n              service is dealt with in Chapter III. The conditions subject to
\n                    L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                         #10#
\n                   C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\n              which service qualifies are provided in Rule 14. Chapter V deals
\n              with classes of pensions and conditions governing their grant.
\n              The effect of Rule 26 Sub-rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of
\n              while deciding the question of entitlement to pension. The High
\n              Court was not justified in its conclusion that the rule was being
\n              torn out of context. After the past service is forfeited the same
\n              has to be excluded from the period of qualifying serviuce. The
\n              language of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) is very clear and
\n              unambiguous. It is trite law that all the provisions of a stature
\n              have to be read together and no particular provision should be
\n              treated as superfluous.      That being the position after the
\n              acceptance of resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule (1) the
\n              past service stands forfeited. That being so, it has to be held that
\n              for the purpose of deciding question of entitlement to pension the
\n              respondent did not have the qualifying period of service. There is
\n              no substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent
\n              that Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) has limited operation and does
\n              not wipe out entitlement to pension as quantified in Rule 49. The
\n              said rule deals with amount of pension and not with entitlement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              6.     It is well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read
\n              anything into a statutory provision which is plain and
\n              unambiguous.      A statute is an edict of the legislative.     The
\n              language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of
\n              legislative intent.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court, it is held that a government employee, who has resigned
\nfrom service, is not entitled to grant of pension and other retiral benefits in
\nview of Rule 7.5 of PCS Rules.\n<\/p>\n
            Still further, in our opinion, provisions of Rule 6.16 (2) of the
\nPunjab Civil Services Rules, as relied upon in the judgment on behalf of the
\nemployee\/government servant lays down the amount of pension admissible
\nto a government employee, who has retired from service, and does not
\nconfer an independent right to claim pension. We find that the reference to
\nRule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules in the judgments relied
\nupon on behalf of the employee\/government servant is provided in the
\n                      L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and                  #11#
\n                     C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004
\nRules applicable in the State of Haryana only. Thus reference to Rule 6.16
\n(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules on behalf of the respondent Mehar
\nSingh in the letters patent appeal and the petitioner Nirmaljit Kaur in the
\nwrit petition for grant of pension on completion of 10 years service is totally
\nmisplaced, as in the Punjab Civil Services Rules applicable to State of
\nPunjab, there is no Rule 6.16(2) and it only exists in the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of the above discussion,       the appeal filed by the
\nappellant-State of Punjab is allowed, the judgment dated 3.12.2002 passed
\nby the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition bearing CWP
\nNo.11126 of 1998 filed by Mehar Singh is dismissed. Writ Petition bearing
\nCWP No.13401 of 2004 filed by the petitioner Nirmaljit Kaur is dismissed
\nwith no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                              ( JASWANT SINGH )\n                             `   `                  JUDGE\n\n\n\nJanuary 7th , 2009                         ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )\nmanoj                                                JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.01.2009 L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 in C.W.P.No.11126 of 1998 State of Punjab and others ….Petitioner(s) Versus Mehar Singh …Respondent(s) Present: Mr. A.S. Grewal, Addl.A.G, Punjab […]<\/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-221947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-16T12:04:22+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-16T12:04:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3693,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-16T12:04:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-16T12:04:22+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-16T12:04:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009"},"wordCount":3693,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009","name":"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-16T12:04:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-others-vs-mehar-singh-on-7-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab And Others vs Mehar Singh on 7 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/221947","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=221947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}