{"id":252686,"date":"2009-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-19T16:51:46","modified_gmt":"2015-02-19T11:21:46","slug":"the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative … on 10 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative … on 10 March, 2009<\/div>\n
                           LPA No.71 of 2006                            -1-\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                           CASE NO.: LPA No.71 of 2006\n\n                                   DATE OF DECISION: March 10, 2009\n\nTHE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE                           ...APPELLANT\nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.\n\n                                 VERSUS\n\nPUNJAB STAE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL ...RESPONDENTS\nDEVELOPMENT BANK PENSIONER'S ASSOCIATION\n& OTHERS\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.\n       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.\n\n\nPRESENT: MR. R.N. RAINA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT.\n         MR. GAURAV CHOPRA, ADVOCAE\n         FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3.\n         MS. AMBIKA LUTHRA, AAG, PUNJAB.\n\n\nASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This order shall dispose of L.P.A. No. 71 of 2006, filed by the<\/p>\n
Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. and L.P.A.<\/p>\n
No. 137 of 2006, filed by State of Punjab against order\/judgment, dated<\/p>\n
14.12.2005 [reported as 2006 (1) SCT 633], passed by a learned single<\/p>\n
Judge of this Court, allowing CWP No. 899 of 2000 filed by present<\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in both the appeals. In view of same order\/ judgment<\/p>\n
being under challenge in both the appeals, we dispose of both the appeals by<\/p>\n
a common order.\n<\/p>\n
            The brief facts of the case are that on the recommendations of<\/p>\n
the 3rd Pay Commission, the appellant – State of Punjab revised the pay<\/p>\n
scales of its employees on 21.05.1989, w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The appellant –
\n                              LPA No.71 of 2006                             -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Bank also, vide resolution No. 37 dated 06.07.1989, revised the pay scale of<\/p>\n
its employees, on the pattern of Punjab Government after obtaining the<\/p>\n
approval of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab. The Punjab<\/p>\n
Government issued a notification dated 24.12.1992, where by the<\/p>\n
Government amended and revised the Master pay scale in order to remove<\/p>\n
certain anomalies in pay scales. The appellant bank also introduced the<\/p>\n
amended master pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 vide order dated 09.12.1997 in<\/p>\n
order to remove the anomalies. However it was clarified that the arrears of<\/p>\n
pay to the affected employees on account of the amended master pay scale<\/p>\n
will be allowed only w.e.f. 01.04.1996. As per the stand of the appellant<\/p>\n
bank the arrears were paid to the employees w.e.f. 01.01.1993.<\/p>\n
            Feeling aggrieved by the restriction on the payment of the<\/p>\n
arrears of pay only w.e.f. 01.04.1996, even though anomaly was removed<\/p>\n
w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3, one of which is the<\/p>\n
Pensioner’s Association of the appellant – bank, filed the aforementioned<\/p>\n
writ petition challenging the order dated 09.12.1997 to the extent it<\/p>\n
restricted the payment of arrears only w.e.f. 01.04.1996. The only short<\/p>\n
question which arose for the consideration of learned single Judge and now<\/p>\n
we are required to examine in these appeals is as to whether the employees<\/p>\n
of the appellant-bank are entitled to arrears of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986 i.e. the<\/p>\n
date from which the anomaly was removed or the same could be restricted<\/p>\n
to payment w.e.f. 01.04.1996. In other words the dispute is regarding the<\/p>\n
payment of arrears of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to 31.03.1996 or 31.12.1992 as<\/p>\n
the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned single Judge held that the order dated 09.12.1997<\/p>\n
was violative of Article 14<\/a> and 16 (1)<\/a> of the Constitution of India to the
\n                              LPA No.71 of 2006                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
extent it denies the arrears to the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and other<\/p>\n
affected employees with effect from the date of removal of anomaly i.e.<\/p>\n
01.01.1986. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were held entitled to the<\/p>\n
arrears of salary arising on account of revision of pay scale w.e.f.<\/p>\n
01.01.1986 upto 31.03.1996. The learned single Judge further directed that<\/p>\n
if any employee has been paid the arrears w.e.f. 01.01.1993, the same shall<\/p>\n
be adjusted. The learned single Judge also held the present respondent Nos.<\/p>\n
1 to 3 entitled to the consequential benefits in the form of revised pension<\/p>\n
and allowances, wherever the said direction was applicable. While arriving<\/p>\n
at the aforesaid conclusion the learned Single Judge relied on the decision<\/p>\n
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Dr. Dharampal (C.A.<\/p>\n
No<\/a>. 10549 of 1996 decided on 25.08.1998) and earlier decisions of this<\/p>\n
court in Joginder Singh Saini vs. State of Punjab [1999 (1) SCT 520] and<\/p>\n
Prem Parkash Nayar vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2003 (2) SCT<\/p>\n
550].\n<\/p>\n
             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great<\/p>\n
length. Mr Raina, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant –<\/p>\n
Bank has vehemently argued that the learned single Judge erred in<\/p>\n
entertaining the writ petition and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed<\/p>\n
at the threshold on ground of availability of alternative remedy. The<\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to avail the alternative remedy of revision as<\/p>\n
provided under Section 69<\/a> of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.<\/p>\n
He contended that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should have filed a revision<\/p>\n
petition before the State Government against the order dated 09.12.1997 in<\/p>\n
the first instance under the aforesaid provision.\n<\/p>\n
             We are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel
\n                              LPA No.71 of 2006                           -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
for the appellant – bank. It is by now well settled that the existence of a<\/p>\n
remedy by way of revision does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to<\/p>\n
entertain a petition under Art. 226<\/a> as the remedy to file revision is not an<\/p>\n
efficacious remedy. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin v.<\/p>\n
M\/s. A. S. Bava<\/a> [ AIR 1968 SC 13] and L. Hirday Narain v. Income-Tax<\/p>\n
Officer, Bareilly<\/a> [AIR 1971 SC 33] and this court in the case of Bhagwant<\/p>\n
Singh Dhanao Vs. Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, [1996 (3)<\/p>\n
SCT 757]. Even otherwise we do not find it proper to interfere in the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the present case merely on ground of availability of<\/p>\n
alternative remedy in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
para 21 of the judgment titled, L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. [ 2006(1) SCT<\/p>\n
601 ], to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
             “21. In any event, once a Writ Petition has been entertained<\/p>\n
             and determined on merit of the matter, the Appellate Court,<\/p>\n
             except in rare cases, would not interfere therewith only on the<\/p>\n
             ground of existence of alternative remedy. (See Kanak v. U.P.<\/p>\n
             Avas Evam Vikas Parishad<\/a>, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 562 : 2003(7)<\/p>\n
             SCC 693). We, therefore, do not see any justification to hold<\/p>\n
             that the High Court wrongly entertained the writ petition filed<\/p>\n
             by the respondent.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             The learned counsel for the appellant bank has further<\/p>\n
contended that the State of Punjab has revised the master pay scale for its<\/p>\n
employees w.e.f. 01.01.1993 and not w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The appellant bank<\/p>\n
has also decided to follow the State Government and amended the pay scale<\/p>\n
on the pattern of the State Government and the appellant – Bank cannot be
\n                               LPA No.71 of 2006                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
forced to pay arrears w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The learned counsel contended that<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge has erred in not properly considering this aspect of<\/p>\n
the matter. Again we do not find merit in contention raised by the learned<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant – bank. The date from which the State of Punjab<\/p>\n
granted the revised master pay scale is immaterial, once a decision has<\/p>\n
already been taken by the appellant – bank to grant the revised master pay<\/p>\n
scale to its employees w.e.f. 01.01.1986.\n<\/p>\n
               The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the other<\/p>\n
hand tried to support the judgment of the learned single Judge by<\/p>\n
contending, that as per settled law, once there is anomaly in the pay scales,<\/p>\n
the benefits are to be paid form the date of creation of the anomaly and no<\/p>\n
artificial and arbitrary date can be fixed by the appellants in this regard. He<\/p>\n
has relied upon the decision of this court in Gurmail Singh Dahdli and<\/p>\n
others vs. Union of India and others [2008 (3) SCT 235]; Joginder Singh<\/p>\n
Saini’s case supra; Jai Narayan Jakhar vs. Union of India and another<\/p>\n
[CWP No. 15400 of 2006 decided on 14.01.2008] and Mrs. Suveena<\/p>\n
Chaudhary vs. Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development<\/p>\n
Corporation Limited [1998 (4) SCT 620], in support of his argument.<\/p>\n
               In Joginder Singh Saini’s case supra, which has also been<\/p>\n
relied upon by the learned single Judge while deciding the writ petition, this<\/p>\n
Court held that having accepted the factum of anomaly and having taken a<\/p>\n
decision to remove the same, the Government cannot arbitrarily fix the date<\/p>\n
with effect from which the benefit of revised pay scale is to be given to the<\/p>\n
petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
               In Jai Narayan Jakhar’s case supra, a Division bench of this<\/p>\n
Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                             LPA No.71 of 2006                              -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
             “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of<\/p>\n
             the opinion that the stand of the respondents that the petitioner<\/p>\n
             is not entitled to the benefit of removal of anomaly in the Pay<\/p>\n
             Commission is wholly unjustified. It was during the<\/p>\n
             implementation of 5th Pay Commission report, it was found by<\/p>\n
             the respondents that there is anomaly in the pay scales. Once<\/p>\n
             the anomaly in the pay scales is found and sought to be<\/p>\n
             removed then it has to be removed from the implementation of<\/p>\n
             the recommendation of the Pay Commission i.e. 01.01.1996.<\/p>\n
             There is no explanation as to why the said anomaly is sought to<\/p>\n
             be removed from 10.10.1997. In the absence of any explanation<\/p>\n
             of removal of anomaly from 10.10.1997, we do not find the<\/p>\n
             action of the respondents fixing such date as justified.<\/p>\n
             Consequently, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to revised<\/p>\n
             pay scale of Rs 5220-140-8140\/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thus the<\/p>\n
             petitioner shall be entitled to the retiral benefits on the said<\/p>\n
             pay scale.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             In Suveena Chaudhary’s case supra , the court held to the<\/p>\n
following effect :-\n<\/p>\n
             “…….It is true that it is always open to an employer to revise<\/p>\n
             the salaries \/ pay scales of its employees and also specify a<\/p>\n
             date from which the revision of pay scales shall take effect but<\/p>\n
             where an anomaly if pointed out in the revision of pay scales of<\/p>\n
             any post and that anomaly is sought to be removed then it<\/p>\n
             cannot be allowed to be removed from the date when the<\/p>\n
             employer decides to remove it. In the very nature of things it
\n                              LPA No.71 of 2006                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
              must relate back to the date when it existed. There would be no<\/p>\n
              meaning in removing an anomaly from a date subsequent to the<\/p>\n
              date when the grades were revised. In other words if new<\/p>\n
              grades had to be given by way of removing an anomaly such<\/p>\n
              grades should take effect from the date when the grades were<\/p>\n
              originally revised.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
              In Gurmail Singh Dahdli’s case supra, a division bench of this<\/p>\n
court, cited with approval the observations made by the learned single Judge<\/p>\n
in judgment impugned in the present case and held as under in para 8 of the<\/p>\n
judgment :-\n<\/p>\n
              “8………..Once there was anomaly in respect of pensionary<\/p>\n
              benefits, pensionary benefits are payable from the date of<\/p>\n
              creation of anomaly and that interpretation will alone serve<\/p>\n
              the purpose and the object of removing anomaly.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
              In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the<\/p>\n
order\/ judgment of the Learned Single Judge is sound in law. There is no<\/p>\n
error in the view taken by the Learned Single Judge and we do not find any<\/p>\n
valid ground to upset the order passed by the learned single Judge. The<\/p>\n
appeals filed by the appellant – bank and the appellant – State of Punjab are<\/p>\n
without merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                         (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)\n                                               JUDGE\n\n\n\nMarch 10, 2009                             (NIRMALJIT KAUR)\nGulati                                         JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative … on 10 March, 2009 LPA No.71 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: LPA No.71 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: March 10, 2009 THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE …APPELLANT AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. VERSUS PUNJAB STAE […]<\/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-252686","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative ... on 10 March, 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\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative ... on 10 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-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=\"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-19T11:21:46+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\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative … on 10 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-19T11:21:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1821,\"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\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009\",\"name\":\"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative ... on 10 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-19T11:21:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative … on 10 March, 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":"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative ... on 10 March, 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\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative ... on 10 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-19T11:21:46+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\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative … on 10 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-19T11:21:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009"},"wordCount":1821,"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\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009","name":"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative ... on 10 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-19T11:21:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-punjab-state-co-operative-vs-punjab-stae-co-operative-on-10-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Punjab State Co-Operative vs Punjab Stae Co-Operative … on 10 March, 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\/252686","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=252686"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252686\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252686"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252686"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}