{"id":43410,"date":"1996-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996"},"modified":"2016-03-11T20:12:37","modified_gmt":"2016-03-11T14:42:37","slug":"haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996","title":{"rendered":"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir, G.B. Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nHARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNARESH TANWAR AND ARN. ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/02\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR, G.B. PATTANAIK\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n      Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Heard learned  counsel for\t the parties.  In both these<br \/>\nmatters, the  question of  compassionate employment  of\t the<br \/>\nheir  of   the\tdeceased   employee  of\t the  Haryana  State<br \/>\nElectricity Board is required to be considered. In the first<br \/>\nmatter concerning SLP (C) No. 7878\/95 the ex-employee of the<br \/>\nHaryana State  Electricity Board died on 18.11.80. The widow<br \/>\nof the\tdeceased-employee made\tan  application\t inter\talia<br \/>\nindicating therein  that she  had not  married and  she\t had<br \/>\nthree minor children, the eldest of them having been born in<br \/>\n1972. As  per the existing Circular for giving relief to the<br \/>\ndistressed member  of the  family of  the deceased-employee,<br \/>\nex-gratia payment  was given  to the widow of the family. It<br \/>\nis  only   in  1992  the  representation  was  made  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent &#8211; the mother of the Naresh Tanwar, the son of the<br \/>\ndeceased-employee that\tsince the  son had attained majority<br \/>\nby  that   time,  he   should  be   given   appointment\t  on<br \/>\ncompassionate  ground.\tSuch  representation  was,  however,<br \/>\nrejected and,  therefore, a  writ petition  was moved before<br \/>\nthe Punjab  and Haryana\t High  Court  and  by  the  impugned<br \/>\njudgment,  the\t High\tCourt\thas   directed\t that\tsuch<br \/>\ncompassionate appointment should be given to the respondent-<br \/>\nNaresh\tTanwar.\t  In  this  appeal,  the  said\tjudgment  is<br \/>\nimpugned.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 13708\/95, an ex-<br \/>\nemployee of  Haryana State Electricity Board died on 16.3.75<br \/>\nand a  representation was made by the widow of the deceased-<br \/>\nemployee in  October. 1988 for appointment of the son of the<br \/>\nwidow of  the employee\tby contending that by that time, the<br \/>\nminor son  had attained majority and, therefore, eligible to<br \/>\nbe given  appointment. Such  representation was\t rejected by<br \/>\nthe State  Electricity Board  but the writ petition filed by<br \/>\nthe respondent Sonana Devi the widow of the said ex-employee<br \/>\nhas been  allowed by  the impugned judgment by directing the<br \/>\nState Electricity  Board to  give appointment  to the son of<br \/>\nthe said  respondent Sohana  Devi  being  the  near  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased-employee, on compassionate ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  appearing for  the  State\t Electricity<br \/>\nBoard in  these matters\t have drawn  our  attention  to\t the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of<br \/>\nHaryana and  Ors. (1994\t (4) SCC  138). In  the said case, a<br \/>\nscheme was  made for employee on the ground of compassionate<br \/>\nappointment. This  court has  not  only\t held  in  the\tsaid<br \/>\ndecision that no scheme for appointment to Class-II or Class<br \/>\nI shall\t be made  by way  of appointment  on  the  score  of<br \/>\ncompassionate appointment,  but it has been father indicated<br \/>\nin the said decision that:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;As a  rule,  appointments\t in  the<br \/>\n     public  services\tshould\tbe  made<br \/>\n     strictly  on   the\t basis\tof  open<br \/>\n     invitation\t of   applications   and<br \/>\n     merit. No other mode of appointment<br \/>\n     hor  any\tother  consideration  is<br \/>\n     permissible. Neither the Government<br \/>\n     hor the  public authorities  are at<br \/>\n     liberty   to   follow   any   other<br \/>\n     procedure\t   or\t   relax     the<br \/>\n     qualifications  laid  down\t by  the<br \/>\n     rules for\tthe  post.  However,  to<br \/>\n     this general  rule which  is to  be<br \/>\n     followed strictly\tin  every  case,<br \/>\n     there are\tsome  exceptions  carved<br \/>\n     but in the interests of justice and<br \/>\n     to meet  certain contingencies. One<br \/>\n     such exception  is in favour of the<br \/>\n     respondents of an employee dying in<br \/>\n     harness and  leaving his  family in<br \/>\n     penury and\t without  any  means  of<br \/>\n     livelihood. In  such cases,  out of<br \/>\n     pure   humanitarian   consideration<br \/>\n     taking into  consideration the fact<br \/>\n     that   unless    some   source   of<br \/>\n     livelihood is  provided, the family<br \/>\n     would not be able to make both ends<br \/>\n     meet, a  provision is  made in  the<br \/>\n     rules to provide gainful employment<br \/>\n     to one  of the  dependants\t of  the<br \/>\n     deceased who  may be  eligible  for<br \/>\n     such employment.  The whole  object<br \/>\n     of\t     granting\t   compassionate<br \/>\n     employment is  thus to  enable  the<br \/>\n     family  to\t tide  over  the  sudden<br \/>\n     crisis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t(Emphasis added)<br \/>\n     The object\t is not to give a member<br \/>\n     of such  family a\tpost much less a<br \/>\n     post for post held by the deceased.<br \/>\n     What is  further, mere  death of an<br \/>\n     employee  in   harness   does   not<br \/>\n     entitle his  family to  such source<br \/>\n     livelihood. The  Government or  the<br \/>\n     public authority  concerned has  to<br \/>\n     examine the  financial condition of<br \/>\n     the family\t of the deceased, and it<br \/>\n     is only  if it  is satisfied,  that<br \/>\n     but   for\t  the\t provision    of<br \/>\n     employment, the  family will not be<br \/>\n     able to  meet the crisis that a job<br \/>\n     is to  be offered\tto the\teligible<br \/>\n     member of\tthe family. The posts in<br \/>\n     Classes III  and IV  are the lowest<br \/>\n     posts  in\t non-manual  and  manual<br \/>\n     categories and hence they alone can<br \/>\n     be\t  offered    on\t   compassionate<br \/>\n     grounds,  the   object   being   to<br \/>\n     relieve   the    family,\tof   the<br \/>\n     financial destination  and to  help<br \/>\n     it get over the emergency.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t\t\t(Emphasis added)<br \/>\n     It has  been submitted  before us\tthat this  Court has<br \/>\nvery  clearly  indicated  in  the  said\t judgment  that\t the<br \/>\nconsideration for  compassionate employment  must be treated<br \/>\nas an  exception to  the general  rule for giving employment<br \/>\nonly by\t making open recruitment and consideration of but of<br \/>\nturn employment\t on  compassionate  ground  is\tintended  to<br \/>\nenable the  family to  tide over the sudden crisis caused on<br \/>\naccount of  death of the earning member. Learned counsel has<br \/>\nalso grown  our attention  to paragraph\t 6 of  the  decision<br \/>\nwhere it has been indicated:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;For  these   very\t  reasons,   the<br \/>\n     compassionate employment  cannot be<br \/>\n     granted after a lapse of reasonable<br \/>\n     period which  must be  specified in<br \/>\n     the rules.\t The  consideration  for<br \/>\n     such employment  is  not  a  vested<br \/>\n     right which can be exercised at any<br \/>\n     time in future. The object being to<br \/>\n     enable the\t family to  get over the<br \/>\n     financial crisis  which it faces at<br \/>\n     the time  of the  death of the sole<br \/>\n     breadwinner    the\t   compassionate<br \/>\n     employment cannot\tbe  claimed  and<br \/>\n     offered whatever  the lapse of time<br \/>\n     and after the crisis is over.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t\t\t(Emphasis added)<br \/>\n     The learned  counsel  has\talso  placed  before  us  an<br \/>\nunreported decision  of this  Court in Jagdish Prasad versus<br \/>\nState of  Bihar (C.A.No.10682  of 1995)\t decided on November<br \/>\n13, 1995.  In the  said case, the question of appointment on<br \/>\ncompassionate ground  to an applicant who was four years old<br \/>\nat the\ttime when his father an ex-employee died in harness,<br \/>\ncame up\t for consideration.  It was  contended\tbefore\tthis<br \/>\nCourt that  since the  appellant was  minor when  the father<br \/>\ndied in\t harness,  the\tcompassionate  circumstances  having<br \/>\ncontinued  till\t  the  date   he  made\tan  application\t for<br \/>\nappointment,  he   was\t entitled   to\t be   appointed\t  on<br \/>\ncompassionate ground.  Such contention\twas not\t accepted by<br \/>\nthe Court  below and  upholding the  rejection of such claim<br \/>\nfor appointment.  this Court  has indicated to the following<br \/>\neffect:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The very\tobject of appointment of<br \/>\n     a\t dependent   of\t  the\tdeceased<br \/>\n     employees who  die in harness is to<br \/>\n     relieve\tunexpected     immediate<br \/>\n     hardship and distress caused to the<br \/>\n     family  by\t sudden\t demise\t of  the<br \/>\n     earning member of the family. Since<br \/>\n     the  death\t occurred  way\tback  in<br \/>\n     1971, in  which year, the appellant<br \/>\n     was four  years old.  it cannot  be<br \/>\n     said that\the  is\tentitled  to  be<br \/>\n     appointed\t after\t  he\tattained<br \/>\n     majority long  thereafter. In other<br \/>\n     words,  if\t  that\t contention   is<br \/>\n     accepted,\tit  amounts  to\t another<br \/>\n     mode   of\t  recruitment\tof   the<br \/>\n     dependent of  a deceased Government<br \/>\n     servant which cannot be encouraged.<br \/>\n     be hors the recruitment rules.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It has  been submitted before us by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for  the State  Electricity Board  that previously<br \/>\nthere was  no scheme  to give  appointment to the members of<br \/>\nthe  ex-employee  dying\t in  harness,  but  considering\t the<br \/>\nindigent condition  of the  members of the family, provision<br \/>\nto give\t monetary assistance within a limit to be determined<br \/>\nby the concerned authority was made and such scheme has also<br \/>\nbeen annexed  to the SLP (C) No. 7878 of 1995. Later on some<br \/>\nof  the\t circulars  issued  by\tthe  Government\t for  giving<br \/>\ncompassionate appointment to the heirs of the ex-employee in<br \/>\ngovernment  service  dying  in\tharness,  were\tadopted.  It<br \/>\nappears from  the annexures referred to the SLPs 7878\/95 and<br \/>\nSLP 13708\/95  that previously there was no time limit within<br \/>\nwhich an  application was  required to\tbe made\t for getting<br \/>\nappointment on\tcompassionate ground.  Subsequently  it\t was<br \/>\nconfined that  within a\t period of one year such application<br \/>\nwas required  to be  made. The\tsaid time frame was later on<br \/>\nextended to  a period  of three years from the date of death<br \/>\nof the\tex-employee. The  learned counsel has submitted that<br \/>\nalthough at  the relevant  time when the ex-employee died in<br \/>\nboth the  civil writ  petitions, no  time limit\t for  making<br \/>\napplication was indicated, but such application was required<br \/>\nto be  made within  a reasonable  time and in any event, the<br \/>\nvery purpose  of compassionate\tappointment  being  to\tgive<br \/>\nimmediate assistance to the members of the family of the ex-<br \/>\nemployee will be frustrated if such concession is allowed to<br \/>\nbe extended  over the  veers so\t that by  such long lapse of<br \/>\ntime the  heir of the deceased-employee attains majority and<br \/>\nthen becomes eligible for being considered for appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By the  impugned judgments, the High Court proceeded on<br \/>\nthe footing  that compassionate\t appointment to\t achieve its<br \/>\npurpose cannot\tbe restricted within the time frame of three<br \/>\nyears and  if assistance  to the  members  of  the  deceased<br \/>\nemployee is  required to  be given,  the family\t member must<br \/>\nnecessarily attain  majority and  then\tbecome\teligible  to<br \/>\napply for getting appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It has  been indicated  in the  decision of Umesh Kumar<br \/>\nNagpal (Supra)\tthat  compassionate  appointment  cannot  be<br \/>\ngranted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very<br \/>\npurpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the<br \/>\ngeneral rule  of open  recruitment, is\tintended to meet the<br \/>\nimmediate financial problem being suffered by the members of<br \/>\nthe family  of the  deceased employee. In the other decision<br \/>\nof this\t Court in  Jagdish Prasad  &#8216;s case, it has been also<br \/>\nindicated that\tthe very  object of appointment of dependent<br \/>\nof deceased-employee  who died\tin  harness  is\t to  relieve<br \/>\nimmediate hardship  and distress  caused to  the  family  by<br \/>\nsudden demise  of the  earning member of the family and such<br \/>\nconsideration cannot be kept binding for years.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It appears\t to us\tthat the  principle of compassionate<br \/>\nappointment as\tindicated in the aforesaid decisions of this<br \/>\nCourt, is  not\tonly  reasonable  but  consistent  with\t the<br \/>\nprinciple of employment in government and public sector. The<br \/>\nimpugned decisions  of the  High Court\ttherefore can not be<br \/>\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In that  view of  the matter, we set aside the impugned<br \/>\njudgments by allowing both the appeals. This order, however,<br \/>\nwill  not   preclude  the   concerned  applicants   to\tmake<br \/>\nrepresentations\t to   the  State   Electricity\t Board\t for<br \/>\nconsideration of  the case  of their appointment either as a<br \/>\ntemporary or  permanent employee  by giving  full details of<br \/>\nthe family  circumstances and the economic conditions. It is<br \/>\nreasonably accepted that if such representation is made, the<br \/>\nconcerned authority,  namely, the  Haryana State Electricity<br \/>\nBoard will  consider the  same with  such  sympathy  as\t the<br \/>\napplicant may deserve in the facts of the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir, G.B. Pattanaik PETITIONER: HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RESPONDENT: NARESH TANWAR AND ARN. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/02\/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R [&hellip;]<\/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-43410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-11T14:42:37+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\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-11T14:42:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1818,\"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\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996\",\"name\":\"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-11T14:42:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-11T14:42:37+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\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996","datePublished":"1996-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-11T14:42:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996"},"wordCount":1818,"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\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996","name":"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-11T14:42:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-state-electricity-board-vs-naresh-tanwar-and-arn-etc-etc-on-9-february-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Haryana State Electricity Board vs Naresh Tanwar And Arn. Etc. Etc on 9 February, 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:\/\/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\/43410","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=43410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}