{"id":248607,"date":"2010-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-26T11:52:52","modified_gmt":"2016-03-26T06:22:52","slug":"ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                REPORTABLE\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 229                OF 2010\n         (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14078 of 2009)\n\n\nRamesh Kumar                                  .... Appellant(s)\n\n          Versus\n\nState of Haryana                             .... Respondent(s)\n\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2)   This appeal is directed against the judgment and<\/p>\n
final order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the High Court of<\/p>\n
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 575 of<\/p>\n
2004 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition<\/p>\n
filed by the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
3)   According to the appellant, in December, 1991, he<\/p>\n
was appointed as Mali on casual basis in Public Works<\/p>\n
Department (B & R) Haryana and worked at the Chief<\/p>\n
                                                                  1<\/span>
\nMinister’s residence.         On 31.01.1993, his service was<\/p>\n
terminated        without     any    notice     or   retrenchment<\/p>\n
compensation as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). After knowing<\/p>\n
that persons similarly appointed were either allowed to<\/p>\n
continue or regularized by the Department, the appellant<\/p>\n
sent a notice to the respondent.          Since the Department<\/p>\n
declined to accede to his request, appellant made a<\/p>\n
Reference No. 81 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Union<\/p>\n
Territory, Chandigarh.          He pleaded before the Labour<\/p>\n
Court that he had completed more than 240 days of<\/p>\n
service and all along he was performing his duties at the<\/p>\n
residence    of     the     Chief   Minister,   Haryana.     The<\/p>\n
Government has made a policy that persons who have<\/p>\n
completed 240 days of service may be regularized,<\/p>\n
however, instead of regularization of his services, he was<\/p>\n
terminated w.e.f. 31.01.1993.            He prayed before the<\/p>\n
Labour Court for setting the order of termination of his<\/p>\n
                                                               2<\/span>
\nservice and for an award for reinstatement with full back-<\/p>\n
wages.\n<\/p>\n
4)   It is the case of the Department that the workman<\/p>\n
has not completed 240 days of service except in the year<\/p>\n
1992.    He has not fulfilled the circular dated 27th May,<\/p>\n
1993 entitling him for regularization of his service.<\/p>\n
Further, the Government has not framed any policy to<\/p>\n
regularize the service of persons who have completed 240<\/p>\n
days as claimed.\n<\/p>\n
5)   Before the Labour Court, the workman himself was<\/p>\n
examined as AW-1. On the side of the Department, one<\/p>\n
Junior    Engineer   was   examined    as   MW-1.      On<\/p>\n
consideration of the materials placed, the Labour Court,<\/p>\n
by award dated 10.02.2003, has arrived at a conclusion<\/p>\n
that the workman has worked with the Department for a<\/p>\n
period of more than 240 days within 12 calendar months<\/p>\n
preceding the date of termination i.e. 31.01.1993, and in<\/p>\n
view of non-compliance of Section 25F<\/a> of the Act, he is<\/p>\n
                                                        3<\/span>
\nentitled to reinstatement.      The Labour Court has also<\/p>\n
directed reinstatement with continuity of service with 50<\/p>\n
per cent back-wages from the date of termination. With<\/p>\n
the above direction, reference was accepted and answered<\/p>\n
in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
6)   Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the<\/p>\n
State of Haryana challenged the same in CWP No. 575 of<\/p>\n
2004 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 23.12.2008, the High Court set<\/p>\n
aside    the     award   of   the   Labour   Court   granting<\/p>\n
reinstatement and back-wages, consequently allowed the<\/p>\n
writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
7)   Questioning the said decision of the High Court, the<\/p>\n
workman has filed the present appeal by way of special<\/p>\n
leave.\n<\/p>\n
8)   Heard learned counsel for the appellant-workman as<\/p>\n
well as learned counsel for the respondent-State of<\/p>\n
Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                           4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
9)   The only point for consideration in this appeal is<\/p>\n
whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the<\/p>\n
award of the Labour Court when the appellant had<\/p>\n
established that he was in continuous service for a period<\/p>\n
of 240 days in a calendar year, particularly, when<\/p>\n
similarly   placed   workmen   were   regularized   by   the<\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n
10) It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed<\/p>\n
as a Mali and posted at the residence of the Chief Minister<\/p>\n
in the year 1991. The materials placed by the appellant<\/p>\n
before the Labour Court clearly show that he had worked<\/p>\n
for three years and there was no break during his service<\/p>\n
tenure.     He was issued identity card to work in the<\/p>\n
residence of the Chief Minister and no reason was given<\/p>\n
for his termination. It is also his case that there was no<\/p>\n
show cause notice and no inquiry was conducted.          The<\/p>\n
perusal of the order of the Labour Court clearly shows<\/p>\n
that one Shri Nasib Singh, Junior Engineer, who deposed<\/p>\n
                                                          5<\/span>
\nas MW-1 on behalf of the Department has categorically<\/p>\n
stated that the workman was engaged by the Department<\/p>\n
on muster rolls as Mali in December, 1991 and he worked<\/p>\n
up to 31.01.1993. He also stated that there was no break<\/p>\n
from December, 1991 to January, 1993 during which the<\/p>\n
workman was engaged.          The Labour Court as per the<\/p>\n
materials placed rightly found that the workman has<\/p>\n
continuously worked from December 1991 to 31.01.1993.<\/p>\n
It also found that the workman worked for 240 days with<\/p>\n
the Department within 12 calendar months preceding his<\/p>\n
date of termination i.e. 31.01.1993. It is useful to refer<\/p>\n
the definition of “retrenchment” and “workman” in the Act<\/p>\n
which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “2 (oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the
\n    employer of the service of a workman for any reason
\n    whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted
\n    by way of disciplinary action, but does not include…….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
    2 (s) “workman” means any person (including an
\n    apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
\n    unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
\n    supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms
\n    of employment be express or implied, and for the
\n    purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to
\n    an industrial dispute, includes any such person who<\/p>\n
                                                                  6<\/span>
\n    has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in
\n    connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute,
\n    or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led
\n    to that dispute, but does not include any such person…
\n    ……….”\n<\/p>\n
    25F. Conditions     precedent    to   retrenchment   of
\n    workmen.\n<\/p>\n
    No workman employed in any industry who has been in
\n    continuous service for not less than one year under an
\n    employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-<\/p>\n
    (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in
\n    writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the
\n    period of notice has expired, or the workman has been
\n    paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the
\n    notice;\n<\/p>\n
    (b)    the workman has been paid, at the time of
\n    retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent
\n    to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of
\n    continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six
\n    months; and<\/p>\n
    (c)   notice in the prescribed manner is served on the
\n    appropriate Government or such authority as may be
\n    specified by the appropriate Government by notification
\n    in the Official Gazette.”\n<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute that the appellant is a “workman” as<\/p>\n
defined under Section 2<\/a> (s) and “retrenchment” if any it<\/p>\n
should be in accordance with Section 25F<\/a> of the Act.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, in the case on hand, the workman was not<\/p>\n
given any notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment<\/p>\n
                                                               7<\/span>
\ncompensation at the time of his retrenchment. In view of<\/p>\n
the same, the Labour Court has correctly concluded that<\/p>\n
his termination is in contravention of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 25 F of the Act.    Though the Department has<\/p>\n
relied on a circular, the Labour Court on going through<\/p>\n
the same rightly concluded that the same is not applicable<\/p>\n
to the case of the retrenchment.\n<\/p>\n
11) In addition to the factual conclusion by the Labour<\/p>\n
Court, namely, continuance for a period of 240 days in a<\/p>\n
calendar year preceding his termination, the appellant has<\/p>\n
also placed relevant materials to show that persons<\/p>\n
similarly situated have already been reinstated and their<\/p>\n
services have been regularized.    It is his grievance that<\/p>\n
appellant alone has been meted out with the hostile<\/p>\n
discrimination by the Department.     He also highlighted<\/p>\n
that in respect of some of the workmen who were<\/p>\n
appointed and terminated, after similar awards passed by<\/p>\n
the Labour Court, the Management did not challenge the<\/p>\n
                                                         8<\/span>
\nsame before the High Court by filing writ petitions.                        He<\/p>\n
also pointed out that in some cases where a challenge was<\/p>\n
made before the High Court by filing writ petitions<\/p>\n
however, after dismissal of the writ petitions those persons<\/p>\n
were reinstated. In fact, according to the appellant some<\/p>\n
of them were even regularized.                    The details of other<\/p>\n
identically situated persons are as follows:-<\/p>\n
\n\nS.No. Name          Labour    High Court            Supreme Court      Present\n                    Court                                              Status\n1.   Gurbax Singh   Claim     No writ petition      No SLP filed       Reinstated\n                    allowed   filed                                    on\n                                                                       19.06.2004.\n                                                                       Service\n                                                                       regularized\n                                                                       w.e.f.\n                                                                       01.07.2004\n2.   Mast Ram       Claim     Writ petition filed   SLP filed by the   Reinstated on\n                    allowed   by respondents,       respondents,       19.06.2004.\n                              dismissed             also dismissed.    Service\n                                                                       regularized\n3.   Rajesh Kumar   Claim     Writ petition filed   SLP filed by the   Reinstated.\n                    allowed   by respondents,       respondents,       Service\n                              dismissed             also dismissed.    regularized.\n4.   Paramjit       Claim     Writ petition filed   SLP filed by the   Reinstated.\n     Kumar          allowed   by respondents,       respondents,       Service\n                              dismissed             also dismissed.    regularized.\n5.   Ramesh         Claim     In 1st round Writ     SLP filed by the   Reinstated\n     Kumar          allowed   petition filed by     respondents,       on\n     (Petitioner)             respondents,          matter remitted    18.06.2004\n                              dismissed             back.              but service\n                                                    Now petitioner     not\n                              In 2nd round writ     has filed the      regularized.\n                              petition was          present writ\n                              allowed.              petition.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              9<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
12) The perusal of all these details clearly shows that the<\/p>\n
appellant alone was singled out and discriminated.      We<\/p>\n
have already noted the specific finding of the Labour Court<\/p>\n
that the appellant had fulfilled 240 days in a calendar<\/p>\n
year before the order of termination.   The appellant has<\/p>\n
also highlighted that he is the sole bread earner of his<\/p>\n
family and his family consists of his old mother, wife and<\/p>\n
two minor sons and a minor daughter.            The above-<\/p>\n
mentioned chart also shows that identical awards passed<\/p>\n
in the case of Mast Ram, Rajesh, Paramjit and Amarjit<\/p>\n
was upheld by the High Court and the award in favour of<\/p>\n
the appellant alone was quashed by the High Court in the<\/p>\n
second round of litigation. Though, it was contended that<\/p>\n
the initial appointment of the appellant was contrary to<\/p>\n
the recruitment rules and constitutional scheme of<\/p>\n
employment, admittedly, the said objection was not raised<\/p>\n
by the Department either before the Labour Court or<\/p>\n
before the High Court at the first instance. It was only for<\/p>\n
                                                          1<\/span>
\nthe first time that they raised the said issue before the<\/p>\n
High Court when the matter was remitted to it that too the<\/p>\n
same was raised only during the arguments.            In such<\/p>\n
circumstances,     the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have<\/p>\n
interfered with the factual finding rendered by the Labour<\/p>\n
Court and in view of the different treatment to other<\/p>\n
similarly placed workmen the Department ought not to<\/p>\n
have challenged the order of the Labour Court.               In<\/p>\n
addition to the above infirmities, the appellant has also<\/p>\n
pointed out that one Gurbax Singh who was engaged<\/p>\n
subsequent    to   the   appellant   on   casual   basis   has<\/p>\n
challenged his termination order, which was quashed by<\/p>\n
the Labour Court; interestingly the Department did not<\/p>\n
challenge the award of the Labour Court by filing writ<\/p>\n
petition. It was also highlighted by the appellant that on<\/p>\n
the basis of the award, Gurbax singh was not only taken<\/p>\n
back in service but his services were regularized w.e.f.<\/p>\n
01.07.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                             1<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
13) We are conscious of the fact that an appointment on<\/p>\n
public   post   cannot     be   made      in   contravention    of<\/p>\n
recruitment     rules     and    constitutional     scheme      of<\/p>\n
employment.     However, in view of the materials placed<\/p>\n
before the Labour Court and in this Court, we are satisfied<\/p>\n
that the said principle would not apply in the case on<\/p>\n
hand.    As rightly pointed out, the appellant has not<\/p>\n
prayed for regularization but only for reinstatement with<\/p>\n
continuity of service for which he is legally entitled to. It<\/p>\n
is to be noted in the case of termination of casual<\/p>\n
employee what is required to be seen is whether a<\/p>\n
workman has completed 240 days in the preceding 12<\/p>\n
months or not.       If sufficient materials are shown that<\/p>\n
workman has completed 240 days then his service cannot<\/p>\n
be terminated without giving notice or compensation in<\/p>\n
lieu of it in terms of Section 25F<\/a>. The High Court failed to<\/p>\n
appreciate    that   in   the   present   case    appellant    has<\/p>\n
completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no<\/p>\n
                                                                1<\/span>
\nnotice or compensation in lieu of it was given to him, in<\/p>\n
such circumstances his termination was illegal.                 All the<\/p>\n
decisions relied on by the High Court are not applicable to<\/p>\n
the case on hand more particularly, in view of the specific<\/p>\n
factual finding by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
14) Under these circumstances, the impugned order of<\/p>\n
the High Court dated 23.12.2008 passed in CWP No. 575<\/p>\n
of 2004 is set aside.      It is not in dispute that the<\/p>\n
appellant-workman is continuing in service and learned<\/p>\n
counsel representing him fairly stated that he is willing to<\/p>\n
forego back-wages as awarded by the Labour court, the<\/p>\n
same is recorded. Consequently, the civil appeal filed by<\/p>\n
the workman is allowed to the extent mentioned above.<\/p>\n
No costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                               …………………………………..J.
\n                               ( P. SATHASIVAM )<\/p>\n
                              ……………………………………J.
\n                               (H.L. DATTU)
\nNEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                                        1<\/span>
\nJANUARY 13, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                    1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Dattu REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14078 of 2009) Ramesh Kumar …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana […]<\/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-248607","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010 - 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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-26T06:22:52+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T06:22:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1959,\"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\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T06:22:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010 - 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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-26T06:22:52+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T06:22:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010"},"wordCount":1959,"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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010","name":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T06:22:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/248607","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=248607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248607\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}