{"id":74002,"date":"1997-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997"},"modified":"2016-08-11T18:29:43","modified_gmt":"2016-08-11T12:59:43","slug":"satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal &#8230; vs The High Court Of Punjab And &#8230; on 7 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal &#8230; vs The High Court Of Punjab And &#8230; on 7 February, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Verma<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: J.S. Verma, S.P. Kurdukar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSATNAM SINGH AND ORS.S.K.SINGAL AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,CHANDIGARH, THROUGH ITS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nJ.S. VERMA, S.P. KURDUKAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t    WITH<br \/>\n\t\tCIVIL APPEAL NO.3704 OF 1990<br \/>\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n     J.S. Verma, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of<br \/>\nService) Rules,\t 1973 (for  short the  &#8220;Rules&#8221;) were made by<br \/>\nthe Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in<br \/>\nexercise of  powers conferred  by Clause  (2) of Article 229<br \/>\nread with Article 231 of the Constitution of India. By order<br \/>\ndated March  18, 1974,\tthe Chief  Justice of the High Court<br \/>\nmade these  rules applicable with effect from March 1, 1974;<br \/>\nand the rules involving financial implications were referred<br \/>\nto the\tCentral Government through Chandigarh Administration<br \/>\nfor obtaining  approval as required by the Proviso to Clause<br \/>\n(2) of\tArticle 229  of the  Constitution. It  was expressly<br \/>\nmentioned in the order that &#8220;all new appointments made after<br \/>\nMarch 1,  1974 have  been regulated  by the  new rules&#8221;. The<br \/>\nChief Justice  also directed  the office  by the order dated<br \/>\nApril 19,  1974 to  circulate the  new rules  to the  entire<br \/>\nstaff and all concerned. Publication of rules in this manner<br \/>\nwas made  and the  rules, except  those involving  financial<br \/>\nimplications, came  into force in actual working with effect<br \/>\nfrom March 1,1974. The circulation note dated April 24, 1974<br \/>\nof the Deputy Registrar, Administration clearly records this<br \/>\nfact.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule 16  of the  above Rules  prescribed the  quota for<br \/>\nfilling the  posts of  Assistants by  specifying that 50% of<br \/>\nthe posts  shall be  filled by\tdirect recruitment  and\t the<br \/>\nremaining 50%  posts were to be filled by promotion from the<br \/>\nclerks on the establishment of the Court. Rule 30 prescribed<br \/>\nthe method  of determining  seniority. These  rules did\t not<br \/>\ninvolve any  financial implications  and  according  to\t the<br \/>\naforesaid order\t of the Chief Justice of the High Court they<br \/>\nwere treated as effective from March 1, 1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A controversy  has arisen about the date on which rules<br \/>\n16 and\t30 came\t into  force  because  the  rules  involving<br \/>\nfinancial implications are held to have come into force from<br \/>\na later date.\n<\/p>\n<p>This date  has significance  because the  quota provided  by<br \/>\nthese rules  was abolished  from January  20, 1978  and\t the<br \/>\navailability of\t number of vacancies for the direct recruits<br \/>\nwould be  more if  the period  of quota rule is longer. Writ<br \/>\npetitions filed\t in the\t High Court have led to the impugned<br \/>\njudgment. Neither side is fully satisfied with the decision.<br \/>\nCivil Appeal  No. 3704\tis  by\tpromotes  and  Civil  Appeal<br \/>\nNo.3705 is  by direct  recruits against\t the  same  judgment<br \/>\ndated February 21, 1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As earlier\t stated, the  High Court sent a proposal for<br \/>\napproval of  the Government to the rules involving financial<br \/>\nimplications at the time of applying these rules with effect<br \/>\nfrom March  1, 1974  by order  of  the\tChief  Justice.\t The<br \/>\nproposal for  approval was made only in respect of rules 26,<br \/>\n27 and 34 and Schedules I, IA, II and III of the said Rules.<br \/>\nThese rules  related to pay, special pay and pension etc. so<br \/>\nthat they  undoubtedly\trelated\t to  financial\tmatters\t and<br \/>\nrequired the approval envisaged by the Proviso to Clause (2)<br \/>\nof Article  229\t of  the  Constitution.\t The  correspondence<br \/>\nbetween the  High Court\t and  the  Government  is  clear  to<br \/>\nindicate that  the proposal  for approval  of the Government<br \/>\nand the\t approval accorded to the same related only to rules<br \/>\n26, 27\tand 34\tand Schedules  I, IA,  II and  III only. The<br \/>\nGovernment of India, Ministry of Law and Justice (Department<br \/>\nof Justice) letter No.30\/8\/83-Jus., dated September 25, 1985<br \/>\nto  the\t Home  Secretary,  Union  Territory  Administration,<br \/>\nChandigarh with a copy to the Registrar, High Court, clearly<br \/>\nsays that  the approval\t of the\t President was only to these<br \/>\nrules involving\t financial implications.  There\t can  be  no<br \/>\ndoubt whatsoever that the entire exercise, from the proposal<br \/>\nby the\tHigh Court to approval of the President related only<br \/>\nto rules  26, 27  and 34  and Schedules I, IA, II and III of<br \/>\nthe said  Rules relating  to certain  conditions of  service<br \/>\ninvolving financial  implications and  not to  the remaining<br \/>\nrules contained in the High Court Establishment (Appointment<br \/>\nand Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Our concern in these<br \/>\nmatters is confined only to the date of enforcement of rules<br \/>\n16 and\t30 prescribing the quota for the direct recruits and<br \/>\npromotes and  the mode of determination of seniority between<br \/>\nthem.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The contention  of the direct recruits is that rules 16<br \/>\nand 30\talong with  remaining rules  which did\tnot  involve<br \/>\nfinancial  implications\t and,  therefore,  did\tnot  require<br \/>\napproval of  the Government came into force with effect from<br \/>\nMarch 1,  1974 by  order of  the Chief\tJustice of  the High<br \/>\nCourt. On  the other  hand, the\t promotes contend  that\t the<br \/>\nentire set  of rules  came into\t force only  on January\t 23,<br \/>\n1975, the  date of  the notification  which was published in<br \/>\nthe Gazette  dated February  1, 1975.  The contention of the<br \/>\npromotes is  based on  the decision in an earlier litigation<br \/>\nwhich  related\tto  applicability  of  the  rules  involving<br \/>\nfinancial implications.\t That decision is Sunder Sham Kapoor<br \/>\nand others Vs. The Hon&#8217;ble Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana<br \/>\nHigh Court, Chandigarh and others, 1987(4), SLR 460.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As earlier\t stated, the  significance of  the  date  on<br \/>\nwhich rules  16 and  30 long with the remaining rules, other<br \/>\nthan those  sent for  approval of  the Government is for the<br \/>\nreason that  the number\t of posts  available for recruitment<br \/>\nfrom the two sources &#8211; direct recruits and promotes &#8211; has to<br \/>\nbe calculated from that date only. There was no prescription<br \/>\nof quota  prior to  that date  and subsequent to January 20,<br \/>\n1978 when  by amendment\t made in the Rules the provision for<br \/>\nquota  was  abolished.\tIt  is\tonly  between  the  date  of<br \/>\nenforcement of\tthe quota  rule and its abolition on January<br \/>\n20,  1978   that  this\t question  arises   and\t it  assumes<br \/>\nsignificance because  the longer  period of  quota  rule  is<br \/>\nbeneficial to the direct recruits.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  present case  the High Court has taken the view<br \/>\nthat the  commencement of  the entire set of Rules including<br \/>\nRules 16  and 30  was from January 23, 1975 and not March 1,<br \/>\n1974. The  view taken in the earlier decision in Sunder Sham<br \/>\nKapoor has  been followed.  In our  opinion, the significant<br \/>\ndistinction between  the present case and Sunder Sham Kapoor<br \/>\nthe subject  matter related  to salaries and allowances with<br \/>\nother consequential  benefits and,  therefore, they involved<br \/>\nfinancial implications\tgoverned by the Rules which required<br \/>\napproval of the Government in accordance with the proviso to<br \/>\nClause 2  of Article  229. That being so, the rules on which<br \/>\nthe claim  was based  in Sunder\t Sham Kapoor came into force<br \/>\nonly when  the approval\t of the\t President was accorded with<br \/>\nthe direction that the same would be effective from the date<br \/>\nof their  issue. The  publication of  the notification dated<br \/>\nJanuary 23, 1975 made in the Gazette was, therefore, treated<br \/>\nas the\tdate of\t enforcement of\t the  Rules  which  required<br \/>\napproval of  the President  under the proviso to Clause 2 of<br \/>\nArticle 229. No such approval was required for the remaining<br \/>\nrules including Rules 16 and 30 and, therefore, the order of<br \/>\nthe Chief Justice enforcing the Rules with effect from March<br \/>\n1, 1974\t brought into  force these  remaining rules  on that<br \/>\nday. The  distinction has  been overlooked by the High Court<br \/>\nin applying  the decision  of  Sunder  Sham  Kapoor  in\t the<br \/>\npresent case also.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The relevant part of Article 229 is as under:<br \/>\n     &#8220;229. Officers and servants and the<br \/>\n     expenses of High Courts.-\n<\/p>\n<p>     (1) xxx   xxx  xxx<br \/>\n     (2) Subject  to the  provisions  of<br \/>\n     any law  made by the Legislature of<br \/>\n     the  State,   the\t conditions   of<br \/>\n     service of officers and servants of<br \/>\n     a High  Court shall  be such as may<br \/>\n     be prescribed  by rules made by the<br \/>\n     Chief Justice  of the  Court or  by<br \/>\n     some other\t Judge or officer of the<br \/>\n     court  authorised\t by  the   Chief<br \/>\n     Justice  to   make\t rules\tfor  the<br \/>\n     purpose:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Provided that  the rules made under<br \/>\n     this clause  shall, so  far as they<br \/>\n     relate  to\t  salaries   allowances,<br \/>\n     leave  or\t pensions,  require  the<br \/>\n     approval of  the  Governor\t of  the<br \/>\n     State.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (3) xxx   xxx  xxx&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Clause (2)\t of Article  229 enacts\t that conditions  of<br \/>\nservice of officers and servants of High Court shall be such<br \/>\nas may\tbe prescribed  by Rules made by the Chief Justice of<br \/>\nthe Court,  Subject to the provisions of any law made by the<br \/>\nLegislature  of\t the  State.  The  proviso  carves  out\t the<br \/>\nexception, requiring  the approval  of the  Governor of\t the<br \/>\nState only in respect of the rules &#8220;so far as they relate to<br \/>\nsalaries, allowances,  leave or pensions&#8221;. Thus the approval<br \/>\naccording to  the proviso  is required\tonly in\t respect  of<br \/>\nthose rules  which relate  to salaries, allowances, leave or<br \/>\npensions and  not to  other rules relating to the conditions<br \/>\nof service  of the  officers and servants of the High Court.<br \/>\nTo read\t the proviso  to require  approval thereunder to the<br \/>\nentire set  of rules  including those which do not relate to<br \/>\n&#8220;salaries,  allowances,\t leave\tor  pensions&#8221;  would  be  to<br \/>\nenlarge the  scope of  the proviso  by reading\tinto it more<br \/>\nthan what  is enacted  therein. A proviso has to be strictly<br \/>\nconstrued inasmuch  as it  carves out  an exception  to\t the<br \/>\ngeneral rule.  The general  rule enacted in the main part is<br \/>\nnot to\tbe unduly restricted by expanding the content of the<br \/>\nproviso which  is intended  to carve  out the exception from<br \/>\nthe general  rule. The\tplain words of the proviso to Clause<br \/>\n(2) of\tArticle 229  leave no  doubt that the requirement of<br \/>\napproval thereunder  is confined to the rules only so far as<br \/>\nthey relate  to salaries  etc., and  no more.  It is settled<br \/>\nthat a\tproviso cannot\texpand or limit the clear meaning of<br \/>\nthe main provision.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Viewed at from a different angle the conclusion reached<br \/>\nis the\tsame. It  is open  to the Chief Justice to frame two<br \/>\ndifferent sets\tof  rules  whereby  the\t rules\trelating  to<br \/>\nsalaries, allowances,  leave or pensions are made separately<br \/>\nin one\tset while  the other set relates to other conditions<br \/>\nof service. If the exercise is performed in this manner only<br \/>\nthat set  of rules  which relates to salaries etc. involving<br \/>\nfinancial implications\trequires the  approval according  to<br \/>\nthe proviso  to Article 229 (2) while the other set does not<br \/>\nrequire any  such approval  and can be enforced by the Chief<br \/>\nJustice straight away by his order. The result cannot be any<br \/>\ndifferent if  only one\tset of\trules is  made by  the Chief<br \/>\nJustice incorporating both kinds of rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have no doubt that all the rules framed by the Chief<br \/>\nJustice except\tfor Rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, IA,<br \/>\n2 and  3 which alone were sent for approval according to the<br \/>\nproviso to  clause (2) of Article 229, came into  force with<br \/>\neffect from  March 1,  1974 by\tvirtue of the order of Chief<br \/>\nJustice of  the High  Court. This  is  how  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nunderstood it  till some  doubt was  created because  of the<br \/>\nsignificant distinction\t in  the  decision  in\tSunder\tSham<br \/>\nKapoor being  overlooked. It is, therefore, clear that Rules<br \/>\n16 providing  for the quota and Rule 30 prescribing the mode<br \/>\nof determining\tseniority came\tinto force  with effect from<br \/>\nMarch 1,  1974.\t The  quota  for  the  direct  recruits\t and<br \/>\npromotees has to be worked out accordingly and the vacancies<br \/>\nhave to\t be filled on that basis. The High Court is required<br \/>\nto calculate  the vacancies  and adjust\t the appointments to<br \/>\nthe vacancies on this basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For the  aforesaid reason\tthe impugned judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh Court is set aside. The High Court would now proceed to<br \/>\ncalculate  the\tnumber\tof  vacancies  available  to  direct<br \/>\nrecruits  and\tpromotees  on\tthis  basis   and  to\tmake<br \/>\nconsequential  adjustment   in\tthe   cadre  of\t assistants,<br \/>\naccordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal &#8230; vs The High Court Of Punjab And &#8230; on 7 February, 1997 Author: J Verma Bench: J.S. Verma, S.P. Kurdukar PETITIONER: SATNAM SINGH AND ORS.S.K.SINGAL AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,CHANDIGARH, THROUGH ITS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/1997 BENCH: J.S. VERMA, S.P. [&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-74002","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>Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal ... vs The High Court Of Punjab And ... on 7 February, 1997 - 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\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal ... vs The High Court Of Punjab And ... on 7 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-11T12:59:43+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal &#8230; vs The High Court Of Punjab And &#8230; on 7 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-11T12:59:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1899,\"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\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997\",\"name\":\"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal ... vs The High Court Of Punjab And ... on 7 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-11T12:59:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal &#8230; vs The High Court Of Punjab And &#8230; on 7 February, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal ... vs The High Court Of Punjab And ... on 7 February, 1997 - 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\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal ... vs The High Court Of Punjab And ... on 7 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-11T12:59:43+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal &#8230; vs The High Court Of Punjab And &#8230; on 7 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-11T12:59:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997"},"wordCount":1899,"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\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997","name":"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal ... vs The High Court Of Punjab And ... on 7 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-11T12:59:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satnam-singh-and-ors-s-k-singal-vs-the-high-court-of-punjab-and-on-7-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satnam Singh And Ors.S.K.Singal &#8230; vs The High Court Of Punjab And &#8230; on 7 February, 1997"}]},{"@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\/74002","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=74002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}