{"id":248050,"date":"1996-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996"},"modified":"2015-04-16T07:38:20","modified_gmt":"2015-04-16T02:08:20","slug":"state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: M S V.Manohar<\/div>\n
Bench: A.M. Ahmadi, Sujata V. Manohar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJASMER SINGH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/11\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nA.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t\t\t14224-14362
\n     CIVIL APPEAL NOS ………………………OF 1996
\n(Arising out  of SLP(C)\t Nos.27151-27154\/95,  2715527157\/95,
\n27158-27160\/95, 27161\/95,  27162\/95, 582\/96,590-595\/96 2898-
\n2913\/96, 3549-3553\/96,SLP(C)22115..\/96\tCC 472, SLP(C) 22114
\n\/96 CC420,  SLP(C)  Nos.8284-8287\/96,  8055-8084\/96,  10341-
\n10343\/96,  15239-15241\/96,  15242-15250\/96,  13967-14006\/96,
\n4213- 4220\/96
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     These appeals  have been filed by the State of  Haryana
\nagainst the  various judgments\tof the\tPunjab and   Haryana
\nHigh Court  granting to\t perons employed  by the   State  of
\nHaryana on  daily wages\t the same  pay\tas  those    holding
\nregular posts in Govt. service. For the sake of\t convenience
\nthe particulars\t of special leave petition  No.27150 of 1995
\nare set out.\n<\/p>\n
     The    respondents\t   are\t  employed    as    Mali-cum
\nChowkidars\/Pump Operators  on daily  wages by  the State  of
\nHaryana from  different dates.\tThe respondents prayed\tthat
\non the\tbasis of’equal\tpay for\t equal work’ they  should be
\npaid the same salary as is being paid to  regularly employed
\npersons holding\t similar posts in the  services of the State
\nof Haryana. This prayer was  granted by the High Court which
\ndirected the State of  Haryana to pay to the respondents the
\nsame salary  and    allowances\tas are beinq paid to regular
\nemployees   holding similar posts with effect from the dates
\nthe  respondents were employed on the posts held by them.\n<\/p>\n
     The principle  of ‘equal  pay for\tequal work’  is\t not
\nalways easy   to  apply. There are inherent  difficulties in
\ncomparing  and\t evaluating  work   done   by\t   different
\norganisations, or  even\t in    the  same  organisation.\t The
\nprinciple was  originally   enunciated\tas  a  part  of\t the
\nDirective Principles  of   State Policy\t in article 39(d)<\/a> of
\nthe Constitution.  In the  case of Randhir Singh v. Union of
\nIndia & Ors<\/a>. (1982 1 SCC 618), however, this Court said that
\nthis was  a constitutional  goal capable  of being  achieved
\nthrough constitutional\tremedies and held that the principle
\nhad to\tbe read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
\nIn that\t case a\t Driver-constable in  the Delhi Police Force
\nunder the Delhi Administration claimed equal salary as other
\nDrivers and  this prayer was granted. The same principle was
\nsubsequently followed  for the purpose of granting relief in
\nDhirendra, Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U. P<\/a>. (1986 1 SCC 637)
\nand Jaipal  & Ors.  v. State  of Haryana  & Ors<\/a>.(1988  3 SCC\n<\/p>\n
354). In  the case  of Federation  of All  India Customs and
\nCentral Excise\tStenographers (Recognised),  & Ors. v. Union
\nof India  & ors.  (1988\t 3  SCC\t 91),  however,\t this  Court
\nexplained the  principle of  ‘equal pay\t for eaual  work’ by
\nholding that  differentiation in pay-scales among government
\nservants holding  same posts  and performing similar work on
\nthe basis  of difference  in the  degree of  responsibility,
\nreliability   and   confidentiality   would   be   a   valid
\ndifferentiation. In that case different pay-scales fixed for
\nStenographers (Grade  I) working  in the Central Secretariat
\nand those  attached to\tthe heads’ of subordinate offices on
\nthe basis of a recommendation of the Pay Commission was held
\nas not violating Article 14<\/a> and as not being contrary to the
\nprinciple of equal pay for equal work’. This Court also said
\nthat the  judgment of  administrative authorities concerning
\nthe responsibilities  which attach  to\tthe  post,  and\t the
\ndegree of  reliability expected\t of an incumbent, would be a
\nvalue  judgment\t of  the  concerned  authorities  which,  if
\narrived at  bona fide,\treasonably and\trationally, was\t not
\nopen to interference by the court.\n<\/p>\n
     In the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia &
\nOrs<\/a>. (1989  1 SCC  121) this  Court again  sounded a note of
\ncaution. It pointed out that the Principle of ‘equal pay for
\nequal work’  has no  mechanical application in every case of
\nsimilar work.  Article 14<\/a>  permits reasonable classification
\nbased on  qualities or\tcharacteristics of persons recruited
\nand grouped  together, as against those who are left out. Of
\ncourse, these  qualities  or  characteristics  must  have  a
\nreasonable relation  to the object sought to be achieved. In
\nthe case before the Court, the Bench Secretaries in the High
\nCourt of Allahabad claimed the same pay as Section Officers.
\nWhile negativing  this claim, the court said that in service
\nmatters merit  or experience  can  be  e  proper  basis\t for
\nclassification for  the purposes  of pay in order to promote
\nefficiency in administration. That apart, a higher pay-scale
\nto avoid  stagnation or\t resultant frustration\tfor lack  of
\npromotional avenues  is also  an acceptable  reason for\t pay
\ndifferentiation. It observed that although all Bench
\nSecretaries may\t do the same work, their quality of work may
\ndiffer. Bench  Secretaries  (Grade  I)\tare  selected  by  a
\nSelection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to
\nseniority.  A\thigher\tpay-scale   granted  to\t such  Bench
\nSecretaries who\t are evaluated by competent authority cannot
\nbe challenged.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute
\nof  Medical   Sciences\t&   Ors<\/a>.  (1989\t  2  SCC   235),   a
\nclassification\t based\t  on   difference   in\t educational
\nqualifications was  held as  justifying a difference in pay-
\nscales. This Court further observed that the judgment of the
\nPay Commission\tin this regard relating to the nature of the
\njob, in\t the absence  of material to the contrary, should be
\naccepted. Referring  to these  decisions, this\tCourt in the
\ncase of\t Harbans Lal  & Ors.  v. State of Himachal Pradesh &
\nOrs<\/a>. (1989 4 SCC 459) summed up the position by stating that
\na mere nomenclature designating a person as a Carpenter or a
\nCraftsman was  not enough  to come to the conclusion that he
\nwas doing  the same  work as  another Carpenter\t in  regular
\nservice. In  that case,\t Carpenters employed by the Himachal
\nPradesh Handicraft  Corporation on daily wages sought parity
\nof wages  with Carpenters  in regular  service.\t This  Court
\nnegatived this\tcontention, holding that a comparison cannot
\nbe made\t with  counterparts  in\t other\testablishments\twith
\ndifferent  management  or  ever\t in  the  establishments  in
\ndifferent locations  though   owned by\tthe same management.
\nThe quality  of work  which is produced may be different and
\neven the  nature of  work   assigned may be different. It is
\nnot just a comparison  of physical activity. The application
\nof the,\t principle   of ‘equal\tpay for equal work’ requires
\nconsideration of   various  dimensions of  a given  job. The
\naccuracy  required and the dexterity that the job may entail
\nmay  differ from job to job. It must be left to be evaluated
\nand determined by an expert body. The latest judgment
\npointed out in this connection is the decision in the
\ncase of\t Ghaziabad Development\tAuthority &  Ors.  v  Vikram
\nChaudhary & Ors.(1995 5 SCC 120).\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is  therefore,\t clear\tthat  the  quality  of\twork
\nperformed by  different sets  of persons  holding  different
\njobs will have to be evaluated. There may be  differences in
\neducational or\ttechnical qualifications  which may  have  a
\nbearing on  the skills which the holders  bring to their job
\nalthough the  designation of  the job may be the same. There
\nmay also  be other   considerations  which have relevance to
\nefficiency in  service which may justify differences in pay-
\nscales on   the\t basis of  criteria such  as experience\t and
\nseniority,  or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so
\nthat good  performance can be elicited from persons who have
\nreached the top of the pay-scale. There may be various
\nother similar  considerations which  may have  a bearing  on
\nefficient performance  in a  job. This\tCourt has repeatedly
\nobserved that  evaluation of  such jobs\t for the purposes of
\npay-scale must\tbe left\t to expert  bodies and, unless there
\nare any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t in the\t case of Harbans Lal & Ors. v. State
\nof Himachal  Pradesh & Ors<\/a>. (supra) further held that daily-
\nrated workmen  who were\t before the  Court in that case were
\nentitled to be paid minimum wages admissible to such workmen
\nas  prescribed\t and  not   the\t mimimum  in  the  pay-scale
\napplicable to  similar employees  in regular  service unless
\nthe employer  had decided  to make  such minimum in the pay-
\nscale  applicable  to  the  daily-rated\t workmen.  The\tsame
\nposition is  reiterated in the case of Ghaziabad Development
\nAuthority v. Vikram Chaudhary & Ors<\/a>. (supra).\n<\/p>\n
     The respondents,  therefore in  the present appeals who
\nare employed  on daily\twages cannot  be treated as on a par
\nwith persons  in regular  service of  the State\t of  Haryana
\nholding similar\t posts. Daily-rated workers are not required
\nto  possess   the  qualifications   prescribed\tfor  regular
\nworkers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating
\nto age\tat the time of recruitment. They are not selected in
\nthe manner in which regular employees are selected. In other
\nwords the  requirements for  selection are  not as rigorous.
\nThere are  also other provisions relating to regular service
\nsuch as\t the liability\tof a  member of\t the service  to  be
\ntransferred, and  his  being  subject  to  the\tdisciplinary
\njurisdiction of\t the authorities  as prescribed,  which\t the
\ndaily-rated workmen  are  not  subjected  to.  They  cannot,
\ntherefore, be  equated with regular workmen for the purposes
\nfor their  wages. Nor  can they\t claim the  minimum  of\t the
\nregular pay-scale of the regularly employed.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court was,  therefore, not right in directing
\nthat the  respondents should  be paid  the same\t salary\t and
\nallowances as  are being  paid to  regular employees holding
\nsimilar\t posts\t with  effect\tfrom  the   dates  when\t the
\nrespondents were  employed. If\ta minimum wage is prescribed
\nfor such workers, the respondents would be entitled to it if
\nit is more than what they are being paid.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  have fairly  stated that  the Govt.  Of
\nHaryana has,  from time\t to time.  issued notifications\t for
\nregularisation\tof   daily-rated   workmen   such   as\t the
\nrespondents on the basis of a policy decision taken by it to
\nregularise  the\t  services  of\tsuch  employees\t as  may  be
\nspecified. Thus,  under a  Notification of 11th of May, 1994
\ndaily wage  earners who\t had completed five years of service
\nas on  31.3.1993 and  who were\tcovered by that notification
\nwere entitled to regularisation of their service. The latest
\nnotification in\t this regard  is dated\t18th of March, ‘1996
\nissued by  the General Adminstration, Govt. of Haryana. This
\ndeals with regularisation of Work-Charged\/Casual\/Daily-rated
\nemployees with the State of Haryana. It sets out that it has
\nbeen decided  to regularise  the service  of all those Work-
\nCharged\/Casual\/Daily-rated  employees\twho  have  completed
\nthree years’  service on  31st of  January, 1996  and fulfil
\nother conditions  laid down  in the  Haryana Govt. letter of
\neven number dated 7th of March 1996. Such of the respondents
\nbefore us  who fulfil  the prescribed  requirements will be,
\nnaturally, entitled  to the  benefit of\t regularisation.  In
\nfact, it  has been  pointed out to us by the appellants that
\nout  of\t  6,715\t daily-rated   workers,\t 3,280\tare  already
\nregularised as\tof, 31st January, 1996. This figure of 3,280
\nincludes 2,082\trespondents before us. The balance employees
\ncould not  be regularised  as they  have not  yet  completed
\nthree year’  of service.  Such regularisation is a matter of
\npolicy to be decided upon by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  premises, the appeals are allowed and judgments
\nand orders  of the  High Court\tare set\t aside. There  will,
\nhowever, be no order as the costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996 Author: M S V.Manohar Bench: A.M. Ahmadi, Sujata V. Manohar PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: JASMER SINGH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/11\/1996 BENCH: A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH 14224-14362 […]<\/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-248050","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-16T02:08:20+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-16T02:08:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1857,\"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\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-16T02:08:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-16T02:08:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996","datePublished":"1996-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-16T02:08:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996"},"wordCount":1857,"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\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996","name":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-16T02:08:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-ors-vs-jasmer-singh-ors-on-7-november-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248050","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=248050"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248050\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248050"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248050"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248050"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}